Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend would be most welcome to come to Plymouth to look at the co-operative trust school that we are pioneering, along with others in the country. May I say how excited people in Devonport are about the transfer of the Devonport guildhall through the community assets trust programme, but also how disappointed the Plymouth community partnership and Groundwork Trust were that they did not succeed in the great competition for transfer? They were told that that had something to do with not having enough community support, which seems peculiar given that they are the support structure for the community and third sector in Plymouth. Could I discuss that issue with him outside this Chamber—

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of Lance Corporal James Bateman and Private Jeff Doherty from the Parachute Regiment, who were killed in Afghanistan last week, and to the families and friends of four members of our armed forces whose tragic deaths took place yesterday and have been announced this morning. They were undertaking the most difficult missions in the most dangerous of countries. Our thoughts are with our forces and their families, not just now, but at all times.
	Our troops are second to none, the best in the world. They are on the noblest of missions. They are fighting for freedom for the Afghans in their own country, and for the world in protecting us from terrorism. This House and this country are proud of them all.
	This morning, I had meetings with colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Gordon Brown: Last week, I talked to the House about how the operations in Afghanistan were changing. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House of Commons additional troops that we are sending to Afghanistan. The fact is that we have made great progress against the Taliban and the fact is also that their tactics have changed considerably. They are no longer fighting as an army; they are fighting as an insurgency. That is why we are seeing mines, roadside bombs and, indeed, suicide bombs. We are seeing Iraqi-style tactics practised by the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is why we are reordering the way our forces work in Afghanistan and why also we are taking new equipment to Afghanistan, as was announced by the Defence Secretary on Monday. I believe that we are well equipped in Afghanistan and will be better equipped in the months to come to deal with this new problem.
	That being said, I think that we are also making progress on economic and social development in Afghanistan, trying to give more powers to local people to run their own affairs and trying to persuade the central Government to tackle corruption, and of course to tackle the drugs trade with greater rigor and with greater determination.
	So, our strategy in Afghanistan is to deal with the insurgency. It is to make it possible for Afghan soldiers and the police to be trained by British and other forces, and to use the support of the 40 other countries that are working with us in Afghanistan and the 80 countries that have supported us in the new plan for Afghan national development. The strategy is more and more that Afghans will take responsibility for their own affairs.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for that answer. Obviously, the Prime Minister is absolutely right that this is a counter-insurgency campaign. Does not all the evidence of the past show that in order to defeat a counter-insurgency campaign we need complete unity of command? At the moment we have the NATO-led ISAF command and the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom command, and there is always a risk of their pulling in different directions. As the Prime Minister knows, I have raised this matter many times before. I know how aware of it he is and that he is trying to ensure that we get it right for the future. Can he tell us what progress is being made in turning them into one single, unified command?

David Cameron: The Prime Minister should understand that either the treaty is dead or it is not. I simply do not understand why he does not have the courage to say that it is dead. This is not a treaty that Britain wanted or needed; it is a treaty that he was so ashamed of that he had to sign it in a room all on his own. Because the Prime Minister will not take a lead and declare the treaty dead, everyone suspects that he and others in Europe will make the Irish vote again. Will he guarantee that he would never support such an arrogant and high-handed move? Would not it be ridiculous to ask the Irish to vote twice when we have not even been allowed to vote once?

David Cameron: The Prime Minister wants to know whether we support a "post-ratification referendum"—ratifying what, exactly, after the Irish "No" vote? Instead of going on about John Major, why does the Prime Minister not supply some leadership? I know that he is determined— [Interruption.]

Gordon Brown: I have great respect for the views of my right hon. Friend, who has been involved in the politics of southern Africa for many years and has done great things.
	There have been 53 confirmed deaths, some 2,000 people have been injured and 30,000 people displaced during this campaign. Four million people are in need of food aid, but are being denied it by the regime. The deputy leader of the MDC, Tendai Biti, is in police custody. Those are not circumstances in which a free and fair election can take place.
	We have asked the regime to allow in observers for the 9,400 polling stations. Hundreds of observers have gone in, and more are to go in. We demand that those observers come from not just Africa, but different parts of the world. We also demand that the UN human rights envoy be admitted into Zimbabwe and that proper monitoring of the elections takes place. If that does not happen, it will be difficult to justify the elections as free and fair.

Gordon Brown: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures. We have increased the winter fuel payment; it is now £250 for all families in which someone is over 60 and £300—indeed, it is rising by £100 this year—for people over 80. We are determined to help elderly people to pay their fuel bills. We have also negotiated an agreement with the utilities under which, first, £100 million a year, and then £150 million a year, will be provided to help low-income families. We are determined to do everything that we can to reduce fuel poverty in this country. I do not accept that we have not acted. We are in a very difficult situation in which oil prices have trebled, and we are determined to do everything that we can to help the vulnerable families of this country.

Gordon Brown: I have not only kept in touch with the President, Thabo Mbeki. I was also in touch on Sunday with the president-elect—that is, the president of the African National Congress, Jacob Zuma. I made it clear to him, and he supported the idea, that there would be 1,000 monitors from the ANC party offered to Zimbabwe, so that they, too, can play their part in the election. So it is not strictly the case that South Africa is not making available election observers or monitors; that is exactly what they are doing.
	I have also talked in the last week with President Kikwete, the chairman of the African Union, and with President Museveni of Uganda. They, too, and all the surrounding African states, are acknowledging the problems that are being created by Mugabe, the need to have free and fair elections, the need to put pressure on the regime for that to happen, and the need for international monitors to be in Zimbabwe, as I said in reply to the first question only a few minutes ago. These are the conditions under which, and the only conditions under which, a free and fair election can take place.

Gordon Brown: The last time that there was a referendum on Europe, it was won by two votes to one, and I suspect that many members of the Conservative party voted for. As far as a referendum now is concerned, we have made it absolutely clear that if it was the constitutional treaty that was in line before, or if it was the euro that we were joining, there would be a referendum. But we won our five protections for Britain in the new treaty, and that has been before the House of Commons and before the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons it was resoundingly passed by Members of this House.

Gordon Brown: The whole House will be pleased to have heard of the ceasefire that has been announced between Hamas and Israel—thanks to the work of the Egyptians, whom I praise. I hope that it will bring greater peace to Gaza. It is important that the message also goes out that Hamas must stop the rocket attacks that have been doing so much damage to civilians in Israel. It is also important that, as the President of the United States said only two days ago, the Israelis stop the settlement programme that is causing so much distress among the Palestinians. I believe that President Bush sent a very important message this week that he will put the weight of the American Government behind a settlement in the middle east. That is the way in which I believe we can get an end to the poverty, unemployment and distress that is causing so much damage in Gaza and the west bank. Britain is ready, along with other countries, with an economic plan to underpin a peace settlement, but that peace settlement must be based on a security agreement, which only the Palestinians and the Israelis should sign. I hope that it moves forward quickly.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the licensing of sex encounter establishments in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill arises from my experience in Durham, and that of many other hon. Members, of the application of the Licensing Act 2003 to lap-dancing clubs. Several hon. Members—too many to be named as sponsors of this Bill—from all political parties share my contention that at present the law is simply inadequate to deal with lap-dancing club issues. I accept that this might partly be a lack of confidence among local authorities about how to use the Act, including over-cautious legal guidance, but nevertheless it appears that too many lap-dancing clubs are gaining licences where local residents, the police and others deem them to be totally inappropriate.
	My Bill does not seek to ban lap-dancing clubs; it merely seeks to strengthen and add to the criteria that can be taken into consideration in deciding when to license a lap-dancing club in a particular location. It therefore seeks to strengthen the role that local communities can play in deciding whether a lap-dancing club is appropriate for their area.
	My own unfortunate experience in Durham outlines all too clearly the need for the Bill. In August 2007, the city council approved an application, despite record objections, for a lap-dancing club on the main thoroughfare into the city, adjacent to the bus station and on the main route from the railway station, and in very close proximity to our wonderful cathedral and world heritage site. The city council appeared to dismiss objectors as moralists, even though the objectors in the main stopped arguing on the basis of the four licensing objectives. The decision to grant a licence to a lap-dancing club in that location caused outrage in the local community, to the extent that local residents took an appeal to the magistrates court—which they won.
	Interestingly, the magistrates thought that the application from Vimac—the company that owned the pub—contravened all four of the licensing objectives, three of them strongly. Therefore, residents thought, in December 2007, that they were home and dry, but it was not so—I and they soon learned that Vimac had decided to seek a judicial review of the decision in the High Court. I have to admit to feeling utter dismay on behalf of my constituents. I realise that the Government could either go on trying to convince local authorities that they had sufficient powers to turn down lap-dancing clubs, even when that proved difficult in practice, or they could simply amend the legislation to make it easier for the clubs to be refused where they are inappropriate.
	At first, I thought of asking the Government, as part of their review of the Licensing Act 2003, to put in a new clause that would license lap-dancing clubs as a separate category from bars and restaurants, but I got the impression that there was significant resistance to that suggestion. Thankfully, at that point I was introduced to Object, an organisation campaigning for changes to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs, and to its excellent solicitor, Phil Kolvin, who confirmed my suspicions in that respect.
	Object and Philip have pointed to a much easier mechanism for achieving the end that I have set out. In London, lap-dancing clubs are considered to be sex encounter establishments under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Sex encounter establishments are defined as venues where nude entertainment is provided for the purpose of sexual stimulation, and I think that the House would accept that that is a straightforward definition of lap-dancing clubs.
	Licensing lap-dancing clubs in that way enables local authorities to refuse a licence when the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence, where there are enough sex establishments in the locality, or when granting a licence would be inappropriate given the character of the locality and neighbouring premises, or the layout, character or condition of the premises involved. A much wider range of factors can be taken into consideration than is possible under the Licensing Act.
	However, there are two major obstacles: first, under the 1982 Act, lap-dancing clubs can be categorised as sex encounter establishments only in London. Secondly, if a premises already has a license for a bar or restaurant under the Licensing Act, it is exempt from the provisions of the 1982 Act. Because of that exemption, even in London most lap-dancing clubs do not fall under the 1982 Act. It is that loophole that our campaign is aiming to close, by allowing local authorities to license lap-dancing clubs as sex encounter establishments outside London. That would restore powers held by local authorities prior to the Licensing Act and enable them to decide on the quantity and location of lap-dancing clubs in their areas.
	The way forward seems pretty straightforward, and that is why my Bill would amend the 1982 Act by extending the category of sex encounter establishments to outside London, and removing the exemption under the 2003 Act. What is being proposed is really common sense: it was clearly not Parliament's intention to have lap-dancing clubs treated the same as bars and restaurants, and altering the 1982 Act prevents us from having to argue for changes on this issue under the 2003 Act.
	I say that because it seems to be very difficult to make changes under the 2003 Act. I thought that I was back in a sociology seminar when, some time ago, I had to explain why we should not disturb the conceptual underpinnings of the four licensing objectives that uphold the 2003 Act. In order not to have to do that, we can amend the 1982 Act instead.
	I was very heartened by the response from the Minister in my Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall about the Government's willingness to engage constructively with the provisions of my Bill, and I have also been encouraged by more recent ministerial responses in the other place. That is good: consideration of and engagement with this issue are good, but action is what is needed.
	The Government are clear that they want to be on the side of the people, and I agree that they should be. This is an excellent opportunity for them to put that sentiment into action. Come on, Government: be on the side of the people on this! In the main, local people are sensible about these issues. Most of us agree that there are areas in cities and towns where adult entertainment is suitable, and even areas in which it could grow, but that does not apply everywhere. People can choose not to encounter these premises if they are restricted to certain areas in cities and towns, but not if they are on a main street or thoroughfare.
	Not surprisingly, the Lap Dancing Association is not happy with the Bill. It wants a voluntary code, but that will not do, as it simply would not empower local communities. Indeed, it would leave the present system intact. The association has specific arguments against the Bill that I believe can easily be dispensed with. It argues that lap-dancing clubs are not sex encounter establishments, and that they merely provide legitimate entertainment. That is fine: saying that local people should have more say over the location of lap-dancing clubs does not mean that the clubs are illegitimate; it simply acknowledges that they might be undesirable in some areas. The association says that it is easy for such premises to lose their licence, but my experience, and that of many other hon. Members, is that getting a review or a revocation of a licence is extremely difficult. Lastly, the association says that this is about banning nudity. That is not so. If that were the case, we would be trying to ban lap-dancing clubs.
	Let me emphasise the point again, loud and clear, that local communities need more say about whether lap-dancing clubs should exist in their neighbourhood. The Bill seeks to give more say to local people, and that is what it is all about. I hope that all hon. Members will back the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Ms Celia Barlow, John Battle, Peter Bottomley, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Dr. Ian Gibson, Barbara Keeley, Julie Morgan, Greg Mulholland, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Lynda Waltho.

David Miliband: There we have the authentic voice, not just of the rebels in the Conservative party but of the heart of that party. The hon. Gentleman is at least honest about his own agenda, which is that Britain would be better off outside the European Union. His denunciation of all that is European reminds me of what his former heroine, Lady Thatcher, used to say about problems coming from Europe and solutions coming only from here.

David Miliband: I am grateful for the display of europhobia from the hon. Gentleman, because the truth is that not a single one of the legal items in the European treaty can come into force until the treaty comes into force. I wish that his membership of the European Scrutiny Committee helped him to understand that basic point.

David Miliband: Within the existing EU rules, of course, we should continue to co-operate.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) made a good point, and it deserves a better answer.
	The Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, and he told us that work was going on at official level to set up the European external action service, which is euro-speak for the Foreign Ministry. Will he tell the Council meeting this weekend that work anticipating the Lisbon treaty must stop forthwith, otherwise it is a clear abuse and insult to the Irish voters who tried to put a stop to it all?

Bob Spink: As the Foreign Secretary claims that EU leaders will respect the Irish vote, what would he say to European commissioners and politicians who were reported even today in Brussels as saying:
	"The Irish were misled by the 'No Campaign' and did not understand the Treaty and therefore their vote is of no consequence and the European Union should press ahead".
	Is that not overriding democracy?

David Miliband: I fear that I may disappoint my hon. Friend. I think that the western Balkans is the best that I can do as regards the European countries that are not yet in the European Union. Turkey is not on the agenda, and neither is Ukraine or Georgia. However, he will have noted the discussion that we had about Russia. There is an interesting discussion to be had about whether Russia is a European country; perhaps we can have that on another occasion.
	In the context of the European security and defence policy, it may be worth noting that yesterday President Sarkozy published an important white paper on French defence and national security policy, which included his very strong commitment that the French
	"armed forces are and will remain national. They will not be integrated into any supranational force."
	Of course, I am happy to give that commitment on the part of British forces as well. Our forces do not belong to NATO or to the EU—they belong to us, and they always will. However, it is important to state that the Government strongly support the emphasis in the French white paper on capability development across Europe, greater civilian-military co-operation, and the development of modern operational systems for bringing together capabilities right across Europe.
	It is important to emphasise in this respect that confusion has arisen in relation to European military operations. There is already a European security and defence policy co-ordination capacity comprising about 100 people in Brussels. It works to a British general. It is not a military operation headquarters and will not become one, but it provides advice to the Political and Security Committee and to the General Affairs and External Relations Council in advance of decisions on European deployments in Chad and elsewhere.
	It is significant that the French white paper should not only commit to French membership of NATO—full re-integration into NATO—but to the idea that EU and NATO activities should be complementary. It makes that very clear. I, for one, believe that that is consistent not only with our interests but strikingly consistent with what the US Administration, from the President down, have been saying. President Bush himself said at the NATO summit on 2 April:
	"Building a strong NATO Alliance also requires a strong European defence capacity."
	I believe that the French commitments made yesterday can help us in that direction.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary admit to deep concern that in the only three referendums that have taken place on these matters—in France, the Netherlands and Ireland—the peoples of those countries have rejected the further integration proposed in the successive treaties? Will he accept that we have come to a watershed in the history of the European Union? Given that there are many in Europe who want further integration, as well as many who do not, will he recognise not only the desirability, but the inevitability of an à la carte Europe? That would mean all member states accepting certain core responsibilities, while for proposals on further integration, there will be not just an opportunity, but a right to opt out for any country that believes such proposals to be against its national interest. Is not that the only way in which the peoples of Europe can give genuine democratic consent to continuing involvement in the European Union?

David Miliband: I am happy to associate myself with the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about the serious concern that anyone should have about the results—or at least the concern that anyone in favour of the results should have. However, I do not recognise the picture in the second part of his question—that there remains in the European Union or among European countries a drive for integration. That may have been the picture in the mid-1990s, but the exhaustion associated with the Lisbon treaty, and the exhaustion of the integrationist project that he fears, is significant. The Lisbon treaty drew a line, not least in the 10-year moratorium that it posed on further institutional change. The flexibility in the current arrangements for the European Union—people are in the euro area, or in Schengen, but it is their choice whether to be there—and the choices extended to us on justice and home affairs policy give lie to the idea that there is one centralised model for the future of the European Union, and that it is the only one available.

David Miliband: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's very nice words about the Europe Minister; the fact that they mean the end of his political career is obviously a matter of some regret. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of withdrawing his kind compliments at some stage, although I fear that Labour Members were watching and may have heard his remarks. However, I wholly associate myself with them. I hope that that provides degree of mitigation for the death sentence that has been handed to my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, however. Unless all 27 countries pass the treaty, it will not come into force. It is as simple as that.

Greg Hands: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is talking about Monday's statement, because on re-reading it, I found that one of its most interesting aspects was that there was no mention of any activity by our Prime Minister. At a time when we might show some leadership in Europe, it is remarkable that the Prime Minister appears to have done absolutely nothing since the Irish referendum result. At a time when the President of France is in Prague, meeting central European leaders who have problems with the treaty, could the Foreign Secretary say something about what our Prime Minister has been doing?

Bernard Jenkin: The Foreign Secretary keeps repeating this line that the Irish no vote cannot be allowed to determine the position of the other member states. Of course, the Irish vote does determine the fate of the treaty. Why is it in the interests of the European Union for other member states and the United Kingdom to continue with the process of ratification unless it is a political manoeuvre to put pressure on the Irish people to change their minds? That can be the only reason. It is a political ploy to validate the parts of the Lisbon treaty that are already being implemented, such as the European Defence Agency, against the wishes of probably the vast majority of the people of Europe.

Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the gracious way in which he yielded the Floor.
	It is rather hard to understand how there can be any purpose whatsoever in a country continuing with the ratification process if the treaty can come into effect only by unanimity. If I had £5 every time I heard, in the past 10 years and more, integrationists saying that the high watermark of integration has been reached and that the sea will now recede, I could retire from this House tomorrow and live very comfortably—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Sadly, Labour Members will have to put up with me for a lot longer than that.

David Miliband: It is clearly becoming fashionable among those on the Conservative Benches to resign one's seat. I hope that I speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends, when I say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman is one of the last in the long line of Opposition Members who are about to consult their electorate.

Ian Davidson: May I pursue the Foreign Secretary on this point? Would he accept that it is not just a time for reflection for Ireland, but for the other member states as well? This problem is not solely an Irish one; it is a problem of legitimacy for the EU as a whole. Will he guarantee that the lesson the European leaderships learn from what happened in Ireland will not be that they should never again give the people a say on such matters? They should not try to introduce the treaty by stealth. It is worth while for the Foreign Secretary to give an assurance on those two points. I shall repeat this point: the treaty should not be introduced by stealth, piece by piece. There should be no cherry-picking.

David Miliband: There are good examples in the areas of qualified majority voting where Britain is blocked from making changes that are in our interests, whether on overseas development or on other areas. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman was a regular attendee at our debates on the treaty. If he consults  Hansard, he will be clear that there are key areas where, across the House, there was a determination to make progress but the current structures of the EU made that impossible.
	Britain needs an effective EU more than ever. We need its clout as the world's biggest single market if we want green-product markets, as we are doing on high polluting cars. We need the collective weight of all 27 member states if we are to secure a new global trade deal. If we are to ensure the EU's huge aid budget is used effectively, we need all 27 countries on board.
	It was clear from Monday's General Affairs Council that there is little appetite for a return to years of institutional negotiation. Issues such as climate change and energy security, migration and terrorism will not stand still while we wring our hands about the EU's internal structures. This is why the Slovene presidency is right to keep the focus of the European Council meeting firmly on the big global questions of the day, from rising food and oil prices to global poverty. This is why this Government are determined that the UK should be leading and shaping European policy and driving the organisation forward. That will be our strategy at the European Council on Friday and beyond.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly covered a wide range of subjects, and it is to be hoped that the European Council will address those subjects. I want to follow him into the detail of many of them in a few moments' time. His speech did not quite capture the drama of what happened at the end of last week; no doubt he was not too interested in capturing that drama. The drama was made by a group that seldom has a chance to speak directly to the corridors of Brussels—the voters of at least one nation of the EU.
	After the French and the Dutch voters so rudely interrupted the passage of the European Constitution, there was a mood in the subsequent meetings of Europe's Governments that referendums were to be avoided, encouraged by a British Government determined to break the promise that they made at the last general election. That Ireland does not allow referendums to be avoided on issues of such importance is a model on which we can usefully draw here in the future.
	Now that the Irish people have been consulted and have delivered their verdict, the truth is that the political preoccupation of this week's European Council has changed, important as it is that the other subjects that the Foreign Secretary has mentioned must be discussed. It ought to be a time for a clear lead from the British Government on that subject. There was indeed a lead when France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in 2005. The Labour Cabinet of three years ago seized ratification of the constitution at that time—something the current Cabinet seem to have neither the leadership nor the decisiveness to do.
	The people of Ireland have been rightly praised for their commitment to participation in the democratic process with a very high turnout, for their courage in facing down the consequences with which they were threatened and for persevering in their judgment that the treaty was not in their best interests and would bring about a degree of integration in which they did not want to participate. I continue that praise of them today.
	I will of course return to that subject in more detail, but the Foreign Secretary mentioned, quite rightly, the importance of oil prices, which indeed should be addressed at the summit, and of climate change. As he knows, there is near-unanimity in the House in support of the agreement made in the EU last year—an agreement which of course did not require any additional powers to bring it about or to pursue it. On food prices—he mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy—the problem exposes even more clearly what an error it was to give away £7 billion of the British rebate without a clear commitment to reform of the CAP, as happened under the Government two years ago.

William Hague: I did not catch any response from the Foreign Secretary to that. My right hon. Friend has made a fair point but, if he will forgive me, I want to press the Foreign Secretary on one or two other subjects that he did mention, and on which I and the House would welcome some further enlightenment or response.
	The Foreign Secretary quite rightly mentioned the situation with Iran, and that he chaired the meeting of the E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers at the beginning of May. We welcome the initiative taken to strengthen both the incentives and the sanctions, and the delivery of those incentives to Iran. But I want to ask Ministers about sanctions on Iran, given the possibly alarming sequence of events since the Prime Minister's statement at his news conference with President Bush on Monday this week. The Prime Minister announced with a degree of confidence that
	"Today, Britain will urge Europe and Europe will agree to take further sanctions against Iran...We will take action today that will freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran, the Melli bank. And secondly action will start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas."
	This was no doubt intended to show solidarity with President Bush and to please him, and those of us who met President Bush immediately afterwards know that he was pleased with that announcement.
	It does now seem that these steps were not agreed and this action was not taken. Furthermore, according to press reports, Javier Solana explicitly denied that any such agreement had been reached.  The Financial Times today quotes a US diplomat who said that the Prime Minister
	"'was wrong'. He made an incorrect statement. The problem is that the US delegation and the US press believed him. On the scale of diplomatic blunders, one delegation member put it as a 'seven out of 10'." The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesmen quoted in the Iranian press today have said: "The European officials have rejected Brown's statements and have announced that there is no new decision for intensifying sanctions against Iran."
	Can Ministers enlighten us as to what has happened here? According to today's  Financial Times ,
	"Bank Melli is working in exactly the same way today as it worked yesterday. It can use its assets in whatever way it likes. (Indeed, one imagines they will now be moving a lot of them to Dubai.) Its offices in London are open."
	There may be some explanation of this of which the House is unaware, but this is one of the most important issues facing the world; there ought to be proper co-ordination of the statements of the British Prime Minister with the actions of the rest of the European Union and the statements of the EU high representative. If the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Europe wishes to intervene to give any further explanation of this now, I would very much welcome that. As things stand, the Prime Minister committed this country to a course of action that has not been taken, and did so on Monday in a way that seems to have disillusioned the US, annoyed other Europeans and given a propaganda coup to the Iranian Government. If that is the case, it takes the conduct of our nation's affairs to a whole new level of blundering incompetence, and we expect an explanation from the Government.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important point, but will he consider that part of the problem is the fact that we have the high representative who, effectively, can go around the world speaking on behalf of Europe? Nobody really knows what he is being told, on what terms he says things or how he is to conduct the affairs of Europe as a whole. Is not it far more important that we should ensure that the foreign policy of this country is in fact conducted through our own Foreign Secretary?

William Hague: I am grateful for that, but hon. Members will realise, if they are listening, that that is not an answer to the question that I am raising. I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the policy of incentives and sanctions, and I have no reason whatever to doubt that those representatives were all there together. What I am questioning is the Prime Minister saying on Monday that action would be taken "today"—Monday—to
	"freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran"
	and that action would start "today" for a
	"new phase of sanctions on oil and gas."
	There has been no evidence over the past 48 hours that any of those things have happened. Therefore, the credibility of British policy on the matter will have been reduced, with consequent effects in the Iranian newspapers.
	That is a disturbing state of affairs. I do not want take up all the time today asking about it, but we shall have many further questions to ask in the House about that matter and about the future conduct of the policy. I hope that ensuring that there is real European Union agreement among Heads of Government will come up at the European Council.
	I have much less to quarrel with the Foreign Secretary about on Zimbabwe. I very much agree with the thrust of his remarks, and there is a great degree of unity in the House, much of which was expressed in Prime Minister's Question Time. The Southern African Development Community and the African Union have a crucial role and a responsibility to continue their engagement to try to resolve the crisis. However, we must not shy away from our responsibility towards the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe.
	Of course we hope that Britain continues to take a lead in ensuring that the EU explores further options for increasing pressure on those who have directed and engaged in state-sponsored violence and who are destroying Zimbabwe. We want the Foreign Secretary, or the Minister for Europe when he winds up, to confirm that Britain is seeking agreement now, ahead of what looks like a deeply unfair election on 27 June, among our international partners on the most effective response to an announcement by Mugabe that he has won the election—namely, that Ministers would seek immediate Security Council action.
	The Foreign Secretary referred to raising the matter at the Security Council, which we very much support. However, we hope that he will endorse the idea of a Security Council commission of inquiry to investigate reports of torture, murder and human rights violations. We hope that Ministers believe, as we do, that there is a strong case for the International Criminal Court to examine the situation in Zimbabwe closely, given what has happened in recent months. It is, of course, also vital that African nations should withhold recognition of any flawed result and that the EU should approach African nations to encourage them to withhold recognition. Indeed, that should be one of the outcomes of the forthcoming Council meeting.
	On the other matters that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, I strongly support what he said about the progress in Bosnia and agree with him that the progress made in Kosovo is welcome, including the new constitution. I want to return at the end of my remarks to some of the wider, forward-looking issues that he raised, but he will forgive me for now saying a little more about the Lisbon treaty and the result of the vote in Ireland.
	The crisis that the European Union faces this week—and it is a crisis—is one of its own making. The crisis has not been brought about by external factors or agents and has not arisen over a fundamental disagreement over any substantive matter of policy; rather, it is a democratic crisis. The question before the EU now is whether it is the kind of organisation that respects democracy or even understands the importance of popular consent in building successful, lasting institutions.
	The crisis is also totally unnecessary. The EU faces no institutional obstacle in pursuing its agreed goals, and daily business goes on as normal. In its own terms, the EU is working perfectly well. As one recent academic study on decision-making in the EU found, "business as usual" rather than "gridlock" has been the norm since enlargement. The whole purpose of the original constitution and the Lisbon treaty, which are so much the same, was to move more power from Europe's nation states to the EU, to create new institutional structures.
	The Foreign Secretary has often spoken of the need to bring an end to the institutional debate. It is a pity that the Government did not say that before the Lisbon treaty, rather than after it.

Bernard Jenkin: Is it not altogether inconsistent for the former Minister for Europe to support the treaty, which gives more power to the institutions of the European Union and takes power away from the member states, when he told the European Reform Forum back in 2005 that the European Union
	"is not a country, so it cannot be a democracy"?
	Every time we take power away from member states and give it to the European Union, we are taking power away from democracy and giving it to something that is not a democracy.

William Hague: Well, that is a good one, but I do not want to pick on the former Minister for Europe; when we really want to pick on him, we have even juicer things to go at him with. After all, although he supports the Lisbon treaty, which brings the charter of fundamental rights into legal force, he was the Minister who said that the charter would have the legal force of  The Beano. So, now we have  The Beano enshrined in the Lisbon treaty. Whenever we want to pick on him, we have that to resort to, but I do not want to do that any further today.

Daniel Kawczynski: My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful critique of the Government, but before he finishes his speech, will he turn his attention to the Liberal Democrats, who have behaved in an extraordinary way over this whole process—abstaining in this House, but refusing in the other place to support the referendum?

Mike Gapes: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), even though I have heard many of the things that he said before. However, that does not mean that they are not still amusing.
	I wish to begin by saying a few things about the reasons the Irish voted as they did. The commentator Tony Kinsella wrote an interesting piece the other day—he is a strong advocate of the Lisbon treaty—in which he referred to the Irish people retreating under their comfort blanket. He referred to the impact of globalisation, migration and other changes in the world—issues that were not specifically part of the Lisbon treaty.
	For whatever reason, Ireland has voted and has rejected ratification of the treaty. Personally, I regret that because I believe that some important proposals in the Lisbon treaty would have made the EU's international presence and action more effective and would have been of benefit to member states—particularly to some of the larger member states, including us—and to co-operation with other international organisations.
	In the report published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in January, we said that the foreign policy changes in the treaty had
	"the potential to encourage more coherent and effective foreign policy-making and representation"
	without in any way undermining the intergovernmental nature of common foreign and security policy or the UK's position in the United Nations. Given that, I suggest that as part of the process of considering the options following the Irish vote the Government should ensure that consideration is given to whether any elements of the Lisbon treaty's foreign policy provisions could be put into effect by means other than treaty change, as long as that is done completely transparently and with full explanation to the public of the benefits of those relevant steps. It might be that those elements are few or that it will not be possible to do that, and I shall come on to the implications of that.
	More important than the actual implementation of changes is something else that we said in our report. We concluded that the Government were
	"correct to argue that political positions and political will among the Member States are more important than institutional changes in determining the quality of EU foreign policy."
	It is really important that we do not get back into several interminable years of obsessive institutionalism, but instead talk about how the EU collectively can work more effectively in practice.
	There are several cases where the EU has taken a coherent and effective position or has chosen not to do so for reasons that are entirely unconnected with its formal structures and are entirely to do with the political positions adopted by member states rather than the institutional framework. For example, both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to what we are doing with regard to Iran. The EU effort, led by High Representative Solana and operating with the EU3—or the EU3 plus 3, as it is now called—is defined according to the current treaty provisions and has been effective. That will continue regardless of whether the Lisbon treaty is ratified.
	Russia has also been mentioned. The EU took 18 months to agree a common view on the opening up of the new partnership and co-operation agreement discussions with the Russians. Individual member states—Poland, Lithuania and our country—had serious issues about relations with Russia and were able to stop effective EU progress. That will continue under the existing treaties.
	We could, of course, say that progress has been made on Kosovo, although at the same time there are divisions within the EU. Some countries, including Cyprus, have objected via what they call a constructive abstention. Even though the majority in the EU recognises the independence of Kosovo and even though there has been an important development regarding EU-led forces going into Kosovo, individual member states have the right not to participate in those forces and have decided not to do so. They have even publicly registered their reservations or opposition to it. That could continue, too.
	Foreign policy will not, therefore, necessarily be hamstrung. I would go further. I urge the Government to try to minimise the extent to which any of our EU partners get distracted from these practical issues by discussions about the institutional framework. I strongly agree with the Foreign Secretary that we do not need to bully or press. First, as he said, we need to give the Irish time to decide how they should cope with what this means. Secondly, the European Union needs to discuss the practical issues with which it must deal, many of which relate to foreign policy matters. I hope that means that, in the context of climate change, the opening of negotiations with Russia and the ongoing deployment of the European Union mission in Kosovo, most of the energies of Foreign Ministers and officials will devoted to practicalities rather than discussion of possible blueprints, constitutional changes or measures of the kind that we have seen over recent years.
	Again, I would go further, and suggest that uncertainty over the institutional framework of European Union treaties is no barrier to enlargement. In the past few days, some rather worrying remarks have been made. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said that the European Union needs the Lisbon treaty in order to "think about further enlargement". On Monday, President Sarkozy told the central European Governments in Prague that the treaty was needed for any opening to Croatia and the rest of the western Balkans.
	That is not true. It is not legally true, and it is not politically true either. It is not legally true because all enlargements involve at least some minimal institutional adjustments to accommodate new member states in EU bodies, which are always agreed in the relevant accession treaty. It does not matter which EU treaty is in force for that to take place. Indeed, accession treaties can accommodate uncertainty over which treaty is to be applied. We have seen that happen in the past. The accession discussions that would lead to an EU with 15, then 25 and then 27 members took place in the context of a pre-existing treaty arrangement that subsequently changed. There is no legal reason why accession negotiations cannot be continued, or launched, on all technical policy areas apart from the final institutional matters: institutional issues are traditionally left until the end, and at that point there will be an accession treaty.
	I strongly believe that enlargement of the European Union to include Croatia should continue without delay. The process should be maintained, and positive signals should be sent to the other countries in the western Balkans, including Bosnia and Herzegovina—which has just signed stability and accession agreements—and Macedonia, provided that the name issue is resolved with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The discussions with Greece are proving very difficult, as I know from a meeting that took place in the European Parliament a few weeks ago. Every single Greek representative appeared to have been born in Thessaloniki, which, as the Greeks pointed out, was in Macedonia.

Mike Gapes: No, I am not suggesting that at all. I believe it is right for this country to ratify the treaty, and I believe it is right for all countries to conclude the ratification process. I also recognise that, as has been made very clear, unless all 27 member states ratify the treaty it will not come into effect. I am arguing both that incremental steps should be taken to establish what can be done practically without the treaty, pending its coming into effect, and that, if it does not come into effect, we must try to cope with the situation as we find it. I do not think that we should halt the process and embark on a so-called period of reflection lasting for one, two or however many years, becoming obsessed with institutional structures and not dealing with the real issues.
	I hope that Croatia will conclude its accession negotiations with the EU next year. I also hope that following the political progress that has been made in Serbia, it too will eventually join the EU. I have already referred to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to Macedonia. The future of Kosovo will be complicated, but it is essential to the overall stability. If we are to deal with such issues as people-smuggling, migration and secure borders, it is vital that there are no non-legal holes in the Balkans where a framework is absent. The best solution is for all those countries to come into the European Union.
	Turkey has also been mentioned, and I strongly support its membership of the European Union. There are political difficulties there, but we hope that the democratic forces will eventually triumph over the revanchist authoritarianism that exists in the military. It will be a few years before Turkey is ready to consider coming into the European Union in any practical way because many changes and reforms are necessary. However, importantly, the prospect of those reforms will be strengthened if Turkey's joining the European Union is still on the horizon. If we, because of our institutional failures, block off the future enlargement of the European Union, we will do a disservice to the democratisation and reform process in not only the Balkans, but Turkey.
	I will conclude by making a few remarks about what is going on in the structures of the European Union. I strongly agree with Enlargement Commissioner, Olli Rehn, that the Irish vote means that the European Union
	"cannot take time out from its...accession policy."
	Mr. Rupel, the Slovenian Foreign Minister, who holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers—I am wearing the Slovenian presidency tie to show solidarity with his remarks—was absolutely right to say:
	"Croatia could become a member regardless of the Lisbon Treaty".
	Slovenia has done a very good job of being a presidency country. The Slovenians were not responsible for the result in Dublin, and they must be congratulated on what they have done over the past six months.
	I urge the Government and the Minister for Europe, who is in the Chamber, to reinforce the line that is being taken by Commissioner Rehn and the Slovenian presidency. In their discussions with the French and German Governments—I understand that the Prime Minister will meet President Sarkozy soon—I urge them to emphasise that we believe that this is the time not to put barriers in the way of enlargement, but to send out positive signals to countries that have not yet joined the enlarged European Union.

Edward Davey: The forthcoming Brussels summit is important for many reasons. It is incredibly important that the EU takes the opportunity to try to deal collectively with the problems of rising oil and food prices, given the impact that those problems are having on the living standards of our constituents, the people of Europe and the world as a whole. The summit is also important because it gives us the chance to hear from the Irish Government how they view the future of the Lisbon treaty. It will allow the discussion of many foreign policy issues raised by the Foreign Secretary, such as Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma and the western Balkans. I will come to all those in turn.
	Let me pick up the theme of the Slovenian presidency from the speech made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). Slovenia has done a good job, and I hope that all Front Benchers will put on record our admiration for, and thanks to, the Slovenians. Slovenia is a small country and a relatively new member of the European Union. It represents one of the success stories of the EU and points the way to the future.
	I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the enlargement process not being stopped whatever happens to the Lisbon treaty. Enlargement is critical to the EU's future and there is broad consensus on the policy in the House. However, the process has caused great consternation among the peoples of Europe. Some would argue that part of the message from the referendums in France, Holland and Ireland was concern about the effects of enlargement, because in a European Union that is about the free movement of people, enlargement means that foreigners might migrate to different parts of the EU to work, to live and to set up businesses. I support that, as a liberal, and I think that many hon. Members support it. However, we, the European Union and its member states must recognise that the process causes tensions.
	Hon. Members who knocked on doors during the recent Crewe and Nantwich by-election know that there were concerns about the increase in the Polish population in that constituency. We must tackle those concerns head-on and argue for an enlarged European Union that sees the benefits of the free movement of people. Anyone who supports enlargement should be prepared to do that, and that should be a key message in response to several of the problems before us.
	It is worth focusing on the benefits of enlargement with regard to the Slovenian presidency. The treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon were partly designed to try to deal with tensions and difficulties involved with enlargement, albeit with greater focus on the institutional issues. To put our different positions on the Lisbon treaty to one side, if, as we seem to do, we all believe in the continuation of the enlargement process—if we want Croatia and countries in the western Balkans to come in, and if we want to contemplate Turkey becoming a member—we must deal with the tensions and concerns that enlargement causes among the peoples of Europe and the strains and stresses that it puts on the way in which the European Union operates.

William Cash: Many of us believe in enlargement, but the enlargement of what? I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the enlargement of the present undemocratic European Union, which, for example, does not recognise the Irish vote, gives us an indication of why the Irish took their position and why there is so much resentment among the ordinary people of this country that they have not been given a vote—thanks to the Liberal Democrats.

Edward Davey: One of the ironies of the position taken by those such as the hon. Gentleman is that one of the major ideas behind the Lisbon treaty was improving the democratic accountability of EU institutions— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman might not agree, but that was our analysis and that of many others.
	I never understand the hon. Gentleman's vision of a Europe in which the European Union has been dissolved. Let me take him through some of the practical matters with which a Union of co-operating countries must deal. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about the importance of trading standards and international trade and prosperity. If there is to be effective trade, there must be an international body to deal with trading standards and health and safety issues for consumer goods and food. One of the advantages of the European Union since the Single European Act, which I think the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) probably opposed, is that it has been able to do that in a proper way with due process.
	Let me point the hon. Gentleman toward measures in the Lisbon treaty that would have helped us to ensure that we can manage some of the problems that come from enlargement. For example, on justice and home affairs, it would have made it easier to deal with the problems caused by convicted sex offenders who have served their sentence and are now able to travel round the European Union and apply for jobs in this country. One of the ideas behind some of those policy areas was to have a proper, due legal process to enable countries to share information about convicted sex offenders who have been released. At the moment, we do that very imperfectly. If we can take that path, we can ensure that the free movement of people does not put our people—those whom we are sent here to represent—at risk. There are many such issues, including drug trafficking and the illegal importing of guns and knives. Those are key law and order issues, and we have to have a process for dealing with the potential problems that come from allowing the free movement of people, which I believe the hon. Gentleman supports. That is why some of us thought that the Lisbon treaty actually had many benefits.

Edward Davey: It is always interesting when people go on this flight of fantasy. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the history of the union of the United States of America, he will see that it came together because of the way that trade regulations and trade were managed throughout the states. That is how the federal Government in the United States evolved and developed. I am not suggesting, by the way, before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, that we should have that model for Europe. I do not want the European Union to become like the United States of America, because, he may be surprised to know, I believe in individual sovereign member states co-operating through the European Union. However, that still requires an international form of government operating through due process to deal with all the issues thrown up by trade. The fact that he seeks to deny that undermines his case. I am delighted that he voted for the Single European Act, as that is the cause of many of the regulations that he says he opposes.

Edward Davey: In a second; I am answering the point made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. Those reports would have provided extra information in the form of memorandums, and ministerial scrutiny through extra debates and votes. The accountability procedure that we ensured through our negotiations in the other place is so much greater than any accountability procedure that any past Conservative Government allowed. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that does not do him any justice.

Edward Davey: Absolutely not, and the hon. Gentleman knows that because he knows our position on the issue. If he and his friends had allowed the democratic Chamber to have a vote, he would have a strong case, but he failed to do that, so we will take no lessons from him on this point.
	One of the major issues at the European summit will be oil and food prices, which are affecting our constituents seriously. When they go the pump to fill up their car and go to the supermarket, they see prices rising horrendously, and that is affecting our economy overall and many businesses. Some of the problems affecting our economy are home-grown, such as the many problems caused by the Government's incoherent tax policy, but to be fair to them, some of the causes of our economic problems are international. If there is to be any possible solution to, or mitigation of, them, that will be found through working with international partners.
	The biggest global economic challenges—the huge rises in energy and food prices, and oil touching $140 a barrel—are going to require major international attention over the next few months. The international community needs a shared understanding of the dynamics of commodity price inflation, and of which factors are short term and will pass, which are cyclical and which are long term and structural. If we can get a shared understanding, I hope that we can agree a shared policy response—be it on agricultural policy, oil and energy supply and demand, influencing the destabilising speculative investment in commodities, or whatever we collectively decide the cause is.
	Such international co-operation will be at different levels. The recent UN summit on food in Rome was an important initiative. We saw the limitations—the problems with Argentina vetoing some of the better proposals for tariff reductions—and heard the discussions with and between the countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Saudi Arabia was very important in that regard, and we welcomed its announcement on increasing oil production. However, it is not really clear whether that will go far enough even to test one of the theories on the causes of these oil price rises—that they are connected to all the speculative money coming into oil. All these arenas are important in trying to deal with these problems, but the question for this House today and for the summit is how best to maximise the UK's and the EU's influence on these damaging price rises.
	Within the EU, we have a much better chance of being heard—whether it is at the G8 or the UN, within the OECD and so on—because we have the potential to speak as one. If we can persuade other EU countries to adopt better responses to the situation—if we can push for better EU-wide frameworks, be they in energy or agricultural policies—collectively, we can have a much bigger impact. I say in passing that if we can persuade the EU to focus its aid budget on the poorest, who are hit hardest by some of these price rises, again, collectively we can do more good than by acting in isolation.
	The question for the summit is: if that is the theory of EU co-operation, can the summit deliver? It has not been mentioned in the debate so far, but the Commission has prepared two papers for the European Council to consider: one on the rise in food prices, and the other on the rise in oil prices.
	I have studied them, and they make a great deal of sense, although they do not say a lot that is new; the Foreign Secretary touched on the health check for the CAP, which I shall come to in a second, but they largely confirm the existing direction of EU policy. In their analysis of the problem, both papers argue that the price rises have short-term elements, but they focus on the worrying thing for us all, which is the fact that underlying structural changes are not just evident but strong, and they will demand major changes in how we in this country, and people elsewhere, do things.
	The volatility of food prices is a phenomenon that has been known for decades in economic analysis. Clearly, some of that volatility comes from the short-term effects of the droughts in Australia and the lack of investment in recent years because of rather low food prices historically, but there is much more to it than that. The longer-term trend of increased global demand, because the populations in China and India are becoming wealthier, changing their food habits and so on, will have a major impact on food supply and food demand. What we are beginning to see is only the first signs of that .
	As I said, the CAP health check is welcome. The European documents claim that it will lead to further reductions in the link between direct payments to farmers and production, so that market signals are stronger, and we hope that that will raise production. Liberal Democrats, having long argued for CAP reform in that direction, support the measure. I hope that the Minister can respond on this matter, because there have been reports of some EU countries wishing to use the food price crisis to reverse the reform direction of the CAP and argue that we should increase subsidies, rather than trying to phase them out. I hope that he can assure the House that our Government will be firm in opposing such moves, as they go in completely the wrong direction. Will he also say whether the EU's position ahead of the next meetings for world trade talks will also take that into account, because if we are to encourage the smaller farmers around the world to increase their production and productivity, surely the case for reduced EU agricultural subsidies in the Doha round is even stronger?
	My only query on the Commission's communication to the summit on food prices is that it does not engage with some of the even deeper, more alarming challenges for world food supply. One keeps hearing from the UN that we must raise production and productivity, and that is obvious, but the issue is that the production must be sustainable, as must increases in it. People refer to the green revolution that has taken place in recent decades, which has enabled food supply to increase. When one begins to examine that in detail, it is worryingly fragile—that is true even in respect of the increases in production in past decades—primarily because of the poor use of water around the world. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of estimates that 200 million Indians are surviving on food production made possible by the unsustainable use of underground water aquifers. In the next decade or two, those aquifers will be exhausted and the food supply that is feeding 200 million Indians today will no longer be there. When we start taking account of such things—even before we have taken account of global population growth—we can begin to see the huge strategic challenges that face the world. I do not believe that either the UN food summit or the Commission's document faces up to those more strategic issues.
	On oil and energy, the Commission's document is more concrete on the medium term, despite the fact that it is slightly wishful about what can be done in the short term. That is a significant positive sign for the European Union, because the document shows that the EU has been doing a lot in this area. It has been ahead of the curve, rather than behind it, as it needs to be because of the increasing dependency on imports to the European Union, including, of course, imports to the UK, of fossil fuels—oil, gas, and so on.
	The European response has focused on increasing renewables and on the energy efficiency action plan, and, if anything, its proposals have been too modest. People in this House and in this Government have said that the EU is perhaps being too demanding in wanting both a big increase in renewables and a big improvement in energy efficiency. However, given higher oil and energy prices—leaving aside climate change—the need for these programmes is ever greater.
	What I would say—perhaps the Conservative Front-Bench team will echo this—is that we need to ensure that other countries take those plans seriously and implement them. It is all very well having the summit, signing up to the plans and having great schemes, but what happens if we are the only ones who are serious about increasing our renewable supply and improving energy efficiency? Will the Minister tell us about progress on the second round of the emissions trading scheme? The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks touched on that important European initiative. Can the Minister say whether the European Union is trying to export it? I hope that we can move it outside the European Union members and include other countries and some of the states in the United States, be it California or elsewhere, as that would be a step forward. The Slovenian Presidency was right to make oil and food prices its top priority for this summit, and I hope that the meeting can ensure that Europe plays a strong role in both the immediate and medium term to find ways through the current crisis.
	I am sure that colleagues on the Conservative Benches will be pleased to hear that I wish to discuss the challenges posed by the Irish no vote in the recent referendum, which was clearly a setback for those of us who support the treaty. I shall explain, as I began to do in earlier remarks, some of the benefits that will be lost if the Lisbon treaty falls. I repeat other colleagues' comments that we have to respect the Irish, and that the EU must not bully them. Those should not just be words; they should be facts. We cannot push the Irish to a solution that we want but they do not. It is plain, given the rules of the game, which we must respect—in this, again I agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks—that nobody can say that just because Ireland is a small country, it cannot veto the process. It can veto the process; that is called due process and the rule of law.
	The treaty's future, assuming that the other 26 member states ratify, lies in the hands of the Irish Government—no other conclusion can be reached—so we have to listen to them at the forthcoming summit. I make one request of the UK Government, which I believe to be legitimate, as they listen to the Irish Government and then respond on behalf of the country. Although we, of course, need to listen to the Irish, our Government should ask them for a decision relatively soon. Without saying what the decision should be, it is legitimate for another member state to say, "You haven't got years and years on this, because you are part of the European Union that has to work out how it will go forward." It is legitimate to ask the Irish when they are going to make a decision.

Hon. Members: They have just made a decision!

Edward Davey: The Irish Government need to tell us how they wish to proceed; that is the point that I wish to make.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is causing himself unnecessary confusion? The one reason why he is right to say that we should wait for the Irish Government is because they do have one option open to them, which is to say that at some future date there may be a second referendum. That is the only way in which Ireland's constitution will allow them to ratify. It is a matter for domestic Irish politics whether a second referendum is a practical option, but until the Irish Government have made it clear whether it is on their agenda, it is not possible to say that the treaty is dead.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman has sought to draw a distinction between Third Reading in the other place today and depositing the instruments of ratification in Rome. Is it the view of the Liberal Democrats that, assuming that the Irish Government do not give a clear steer on their intentions at the forthcoming summit and if the other place give the Bill a Third Reading later today, Britain should not deposit our articles of ratification in Rome?

Edward Davey: If we do not get a clear, timetabled approach from the Irish Government, finishing by October, there will be serious questions about the whole process of ratification, whether by the UK or beyond. The Irish Government must come forward with a clear timetable. I say that as a pro-European, because the pro-European cause would be seriously undermined if we had months and years of procrastination and delay. Whether one takes the Conservative interpretation of the Dutch, Irish and French referendums or other interpretations, there are clearly concerns about the treaty. Unless the Irish make their intentions clear in a relatively short period, it is probably right for the Lisbon treaty not to go ahead.
	I say that as someone who supports the Lisbon treaty. I think that it has many benefits, but I have always argued that it is a modest treaty. Unlike some Conservatives, who thought that it was an earth-shattering major treaty, we have always argued that it was about sensible improved democratic accountability and the efficiency of the institutions, and included some welcome measures on issues such as energy policy. Were the treaty to fall, therefore, it would not be a disaster for the European Union. Indeed, the EU could operate on the Nice treaty. That is not something that we—unlike the Conservative Front Bench—seek, but it is true.
	We have heard reference—implicit by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and direct by the hon. Member for Ilford, South—to some of the academic work on how the EU has functioned since the Nice treaty, especially that by Professor Helen Wallace. That shows that member states have managed to get through. I have spoken to Helen Wallace about her work. She does not necessarily accept the right hon. Gentleman's full conclusions, because she believes that the Lisbon treaty would improve the situation further and would have many other benefits. Nevertheless, the European Union can go on without the Lisbon treaty if that is what transpires.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks has been very negative about the Nice treaty in the past. He now seems to be rather less worried about it, but he did say of it:
	"Is not the truth, when we cut through the spin, that the agreement"
	the Nice treaty—
	"represents three more major steps to a European superstate?"—[ Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 351.]
	Perhaps he can remind the House what those three steps were, and whether he has any intention of opposing them in future, should he ever come to office.

Edward Davey: That is not my position. I believe that every member state has its own constitutional process for ratifying the treaty, and the Irish Government are accountable to the Irish people. They have to reach their own conclusions. As the hon. Member for Stone rightly said, Ireland's constitutional position is that if the Irish Government wish to proceed, they will have to have a second referendum.
	The Foreign Secretary touched on various other issues, to do with Zimbabwe, Burma and Iran. However, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not go into detail about them, except to say that we support the Government's overall approach.
	On Zimbabwe, the Government must persuade other EU members that a stolen election with all the killing, violence and intimidation that has been reported will move the EU, working with allies around the world, to take serious action. We must not simply look away: if what we all fear actually happens, this is one matter on which, at long last, the international community has to stand up and be counted.
	The question of the western Balkans has not been mentioned much so far in this debate, but again we support the Government's overall approach. However, I hope that the Minister for Europe will say something on the record about Serbia's place in the European perspective on the western Balkans. Will he confirm that the stabilisation and association agreement that has been signed with Serbia will go no further until the Serbian Government ensure that war criminals like Mladic are offered up to the International Criminal Court?
	This European summit is historic, as rising food and oil prices mean that it will have to deal with some of the most difficult economic and social problems for a generation. We have to hope that the EU can make a positive contribution to that work. The summit is also historic because it will have to take some difficult decisions about the EU's future institutional framework. Yet whatever decision the Irish Government reach, Britain's national interest remains with the EU, with or without the Lisbon treaty. We need to move on from institutional rancour and deal with the EU's policy agenda, which is so important for dealing with international crime, terrorism and climate change and for restoring prosperity to the countries of the EU.

Mary Creagh: For the EU to be effective, it must engage with the issues that matter to the people who live in it. The issues that affect my constituents in Wakefield are the same as those that worry people in Warsaw, and Wicklow. People in Wakefield are worried about rising food and fuel prices. They write to me urging me to do more about the dangers of climate change, and they care about the plight of people, both at home and abroad, who are less fortunate than they are. My answer is that there is much that we can do, but that such problems cannot be solved by the UK acting alone. We are much better able to act when we co-operate and work with our friends in Europe.
	Global rises in the cost of food and fuel are hitting people in their pockets across Europe. The UK and Europe face two long-term energy challenges. The first is the need to deliver a secure supply of clean energy at prices that people can afford, and the second is climate change, which requires reductions in damaging carbon emissions that put our children's future at risk.
	Fuel policy is now at the centre of European thinking. Europe imports half of its gas from Russia, and 80 per cent. of that gas comes through Ukraine. In 2006, Russia interrupted the gas supply. During that time, I visited Brotherton's, a chemicals company in Wakefield. Its managing director described vividly the impact that a 50 per cent. increase in gas costs was having on the business's profit margin. When Russia turns off the tap, workers and businesses in Wakefield suffer.
	Europe offers a clear route to cheaper, cleaner energy. Other hon. Members have described how the Heads of Government agreed in 2007 to a binding target of 20 per cent. of fuel from renewable sources by 2020. They also agreed to copy the UK model and further liberalise energy supplies by splitting supply and production from distribution activities. That should lead to lower prices for continental consumers, more competition and a level playing field on continental Europe, as well as to a level playing field for British companies that wish to distribute energy.
	A functioning internal market and a common EU infrastructure in energy would lead to significant advantages for the UK and Europe, such as extra jobs, new technology, and, most importantly, cheaper prices for consumers. The EU will also increase by at least 50 per cent. its spending on energy research for the next seven years. That is great news for those British universities that are world leaders in certain areas of renewables research. That is the story that we need to tell our voters about the EU—how the single market and co-operation in Europe will lead to lower gas bills on their doormats.
	On climate change, it is vital that we work with our EU partners to create an agreement to replace Kyoto when it runs out in 2012. Last year, the EU spoke with one voice at the UN climate change conference in Bali, and that unity gives us the basis for further negotiations to make large cuts in carbon emissions. Only a united Europe— with Britain at its centre, not skulking at the edges—can deliver the action that we need on climate change.
	In March this year, the European Council agreed an ambitious schedule for adopting a package of measures to cut EU emissions by 20 per cent. by 2020, or by 30 per cent. as part of an international agreement. If one is pro-environment, one has to be pro-Europe. The EU emissions trading scheme is the biggest environment policy in the world and it is likely to be at the heart of, and perhaps the blueprint for, a future global carbon trading scheme.
	Meeting the EU's climate change target requires not just action to reduce carbon emissions from energy suppliers and industry, but incentives to change individual behaviour as well. The European Commission is currently looking at how economic incentives, including VAT rates, can increase the use of energy-efficient goods and energy-saving materials in the home.
	An EU that delivers cheaper insulation materials, cheaper energy-saving light bulbs, and cheaper green energy is an EU that speaks a language that everyone in Europe can understand. Tackling rising fuel price rises and climate change can best be done through Governments working together, and that is why it is so baffling that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is so determined to pull the Tories out of mainstream European politics. One of the few concrete pledges that he has made, in a stream of vague hints and sales pitches, is that he will remove the Tory MEPs from the European People's party, so putting them firmly on the fringes of the European political scene.
	The Lisbon treaty allows the EU to tackle climate change at an international level. It is vital that we press on with it so that we can take action in that area. Labour has led on climate change both at home and abroad. We were pivotal in securing the Kyoto protocol, and we launched with our European neighbours the international emissions trading scheme. Further work is being done with the recently introduced Climate Change Bill.
	Meanwhile, however, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—who headed the Opposition's economic competitiveness policy review—believes that climate change is a "swindle". It is no wonder that people are starting to realise that the Opposition's claim to care about the environment is nothing but a photo opportunity and a scam—a reptilian green skin that will be shed in favour of true-blue tax cuts and Europe-bashing at the first opportunity.
	Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England announced inflation figures showing that people in the UK are spending 8 per cent. more on food this year compared to last. Global food prices have risen by 83 per cent. over the last three years, and rice, maize and wheat prices have all reached record highs this year. There are no magic bullets or simple solutions to the problems of rising food prices. They concern us all, and they affect the poorest in every society. I am especially concerned about the effect that the price rises will have on children, not just in EU member states but also—and particularly—in the developing world. They are making food unaffordable for many of the poorest people in the world's poorest countries. It is an international problem, and it requires an international response.
	The UK is just one voice among those of 240 countries in the world, but when we stand with our European partners we are part of an institution that speaks for almost 500 million people and generates almost a third of the world's wealth. When the EU speaks, the world listens.
	The Prime Minister has made it clear that the world is not making progress on the eight millennium development goals agreed by world leaders in 2000. The first of those goals is supposed to be achieved by 2015 and it is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. We are halfway through the time scale allocated for achieving the millennium development goals, and we are absolutely nowhere near reaching the target.
	Hon. Members have talked in this debate about the situation in Zimbabwe, where 45 per cent. of the population is dependent on food aid. Even now, the international humanitarian response is in jeopardy, as Mugabe uses the food supply as a tool of oppression and a political instrument.
	In Burma, the natural disaster caused by Cyclone Nargis was compounded by the generals' indifference to their suffering population. Burma might now have faded from the news headlines, and it might be incredibly difficult for journalists to report from there, but, as we speak, probably thousands if not tens of thousands of people are dying a slow, lingering death from diseases that are preventable by vaccines and good hygiene—because of the generals' difficulties in allowing foreign aid agencies in. There are people in this House who believe that such indifference on a mass scale, compounding the devastation caused by the cyclone, constitutes a crime against humanity.
	In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I visited in 2006, there is an infant mortality rate of 20 per cent. in children under five. That means that one in five children dies before their fifth birthday. In the east of the country, in north and south Kivu, there is also widespread sexual violence against women. While I was in the DRC, in Bukavu, I visited the Panzi hospital, which treats some of the 4,000 rape victims each year, whose ages range from four to 75. Those women and children have not only been raped with violence by the militias of the Interahamwe, who are still hiding in the jungle and in the bush; they have been abused and tortured with bottles, guns and pieces of wood. The doctors there spend an incredible amount of time and effort trying to put those women's lives back together.
	That hospital is funded by the European Union's programme. The irony was that the hospital received funding while war was raging in eastern Congo between 1998 and 2004, but as soon as peace was declared in the region, the European Community decided that it no longer merited emergency funding, because the situation in that province was no longer classed as an emergency. The funding therefore ended. I am delighted that the Department for International Development has taken up some of the shortfall in that funding, which has allowed the hospital to create a second ward in which women can wait for their operations. They often need a series of operations.
	It is important to look at how European assistance is given and to ensure that there are better controls over that process. Every year, we see conflicts, droughts and earthquakes triggering humanitarian responses in different parts of the world, and every year, millions of people, be they in the DRC, Afghanistan or Darfur, find themselves without shelter, food, water or medical care. The European Union provides emergency relief to those people. The EU is the world's biggest aid spender, with a combined budget of $34 billion in 2004, of which $8 billion is administered by the EU directly. I believe that the EU must follow the UK's lead in decoupling trade from aid. That is another provision that the Lisbon treaty would allow. We are halfway through the target time frame for the millennium development goals, yet we are nowhere near achieving many of them.
	I want to conclude by mentioning the Irish referendum. The Irish have spoken, but there 26 other member states whose opinions matter as well. The fact that one country has said no to the package as it stands is no reason for us to forget the reasons why we need reform, and no reason for us to stick with the current system. All member states agree with the need for reform. Even Conservative Members are agreed on that, and the various groups that campaigned for a no vote in Ireland claimed that they wanted a better settlement. We need to allow the Irish a period of reflection and space to identify what they do not like about the Lisbon treaty. Presumably, it is not the extra democratic powers for Parliaments, or the clearer focus on combating climate change. It must be some other aspects that they do not like. If they can identify those aspects, perhaps their concerns can be addressed.
	I should also like to caution hon. Members that public hostility and indifference to the process of EU institutional reform is nothing new. I remember standing outside the James Joyce pub in Brussels, when the Danes rejected the Maastricht treaty in 1992. It was an interesting evening, and one that I remember well. The Danes said to the rest of Europe that they did not want to destroy the entire edifice, and that they would come back with constructive proposals that would provide a way out of the impasse. They had looked at the parts of the Maastricht package that they did not like, and the UK and other member states were able to meet their concerns without making huge changes to the treaty. The treaty was then approved by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.
	Some of the fears raised during the Irish debate were unjustified. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws. It does not affect Ireland's ability to set tax rates or its neutrality. Nor does it force its armed services to become part of a European army. Those fears can be assuaged without fundamentally changing the treaty, perhaps through clarifying declarations or additional protocols.
	The UK Government are right to give the Irish a breathing space. Whatever the issues may be, it should not be impossible to address them. I do not think that we should pay any attention to the howling of Eurosceptics that holding a new referendum would in some way be undemocratic. It is perfectly reasonable to address differences in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking a minority of one to think again, especially after working together to address the concerns involved.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is no longer in his place. We talked a lot about cojones when he was ribbing the Liberal Democrats earlier. I wonder whether it is a demonstration of cojones on the part of his leader not to reject Alun Cairns as a Welsh Tory prospective parliamentary candidate for saying that he would not support the Italian football team because they were a bunch of "greasy wops". I wonder why the Conservative party has not expelled someone who expounds such racist and xenophobic views— [ Interruption. ]

Malcolm Rifkind: It is possible for any Government in Europe to open any issue that they wish, and to try to persuade their colleagues to make changes; that, of course, is right. What I am saying is that holding a referendum in this country on whether the Lisbon treaty should be implemented would be absurd if the treaty had already been ratified by every country and had come into effect. That would be a pointless exercise. Of course, there may be other initiatives that a future British Government, or any other Government, might wish to take; that is entirely within their control and discretion.
	I want to move on from the Irish vote and consider the wider implications of what is happening in Europe. Increasingly, in cases where the peoples of Europe are invited to give their judgment, they are saying no to proposals put to them by their Government. That has happened not in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland or any other countries that are thought to be sceptical; what is most significant and disturbing to those who believe in the European concept is that that has happened in France, the Netherlands and Ireland—countries that were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the European Union and still profess to be so. At the very least, the conclusion that we must draw if we are honest with ourselves is that, in those countries, and doubtless in other continental European countries, there is a developing mismatch between the political elites, who remain committed to the European Union and perhaps to further integration, and their populations, who do not, when given the choice, choose to give their consent.
	The question must therefore be addressed, whether one is a Europhile or a Eurosceptic: what is the future of the EU, if it is not based on the genuine, whole-hearted, democratic consent of the people of the countries concerned? It is not good enough for political elites simply to say that they have found a clever way to implement a change that they are trying to achieve. They may succeed—in the short term, they may be remarkably successful, and be very pleased with themselves. If they increasingly use such methods, and if they make clear their contempt for their electorate's views, they will come to rue the day, because ultimately they will destroy the belief of the vast majority of people—not just Eurosceptics, politicians and people who take part in our debates but the public as a whole in Britain and throughout continental Europe. That is a crucial point.
	The question is therefore: how do we try to square the circle? In Europe, many people—not just politicians but many members of the general public—still want the process of integration to be taken further. There are many people, perhaps millions of them, who genuinely want that, particularly in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and elsewhere. How do we reconcile that with something that is equally apparent: the fact that there are millions of people who take a different view? They are not anti-European: they want close European co-operation, and they want the EU to survive. They are not trying to dismantle the edifice, but they want to reconcile that with their own belief about what is possible and desirable in the modern world.
	I think that it can be reconciled, which is why I come back to the question of what is often referred to as "Europe à la carte". That is not some artificial concept—it is not an attempt to achieve the impossible, but a recognition that Europe is totally different from the United States or sovereign states around the world. It is a unique construct, as nothing like it has existed before: so many nation states have never before agreed to share certain degrees of national sovereignty. How do we reconcile that with the strong differences, which are increasingly evident, of unwillingness to go further by tens of millions of people?
	The Europe à la carte concept is important. It is not simply about opt-outs. There are opt-outs for various countries on the single currency, Schengen, home affairs, and a range of other matters. It is not just the United Kingdom that has opt-outs: Sweden, Poland and other countries claim and exercise such rights, which is important. Two fundamental changes, however, need to be made to achieve what I am talking about, which could be the basis for a more consensual Europe. First, we have to recognise that those opt-outs and others that may emerge are not temporary; they are permanent, or will be so in many cases. A phrase that has been used in the past week is "a two-speed Europe". I do not believe in a two-speed Europe, because it implies that we will all end up at the same destination, except that some will get there a bit later than others. It is simply a transitional arrangement for countries to have opt-outs—as if the UK will one day join the single currency. I do not believe that it will do so, although I cannot prove that—it is simply my judgment.
	It is not a two-speed Europe that we are discussing. It must be recognised that many countries—perhaps an increasing number—are not prepared to join parts of the European construct or acquis. That is a permanent factor, and it should be recognised. The second point, which is equally important, is that that must not be a matter for haggling, negotiation, bitterness and controversy. A dual right should exist in the EU. First, any country that wants to opt out of future integration proposals should not have to negotiate—it should have the right to do so. Equally, countries that wish to go further have the right to do so, and those who do not believe in that do not have the power to veto it. In both cases, that is not the situation today. At the moment, people haggle and negotiate. It is bitter and horrid, and eventually they achieve some sort of opt-out. That is not good enough. Equally, there is potential for enhanced co-operation to allow some groups of countries to go further. They have never been able to use that, as it is not a practical proposition at the moment.
	Finally, I accept that anyone who wants to be a member of the European Union has to accept certain core responsibilities that go with membership. They have to accept the single market and the common agricultural policy. There are a range of other issues that it is necessary to accept if a country wants to be a member at all, but I am referring to what it does beyond that.

Malcolm Rifkind: I would not presume to advise the Danish Government at all. That is entirely a matter for domestic Danish politics, and it is for Denmark to decide the appropriate way to pursue those views. It is a debate that must take place within Denmark and, as long as the conclusion satisfies the Danish people, far be it for me to exercise or offer any different view.
	Europe must recognise that there are certain core activities to which, if we are to have a European Union, all member states must sign up. But, if we wish to go beyond that, and many still do, it is crucial that we have a system that is flexible enough to recognise that fact.

Bernard Jenkin: I am listening very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's presentation, but the European Commission's own Sapir report, for example, recommended the common agricultural policy as an area that might be re-delegated or even returned to the sovereignty of member states. I do not think that there are any complete—untouchable—shibboleths that should prevent two-way traffic. On the existing treaty, the question is how do we prevent the institutions—particularly the European Court of Justice—from constantly extending the meaning and import of what we have already signed? The precise problem already exists, because what we thought was an effective opt-out from the social chapter turned out not to be so with regard to the working time directive.

Malcolm Rifkind: I do not want to take up too much time. We can each have views on that subject. My own view is that the single market has to be a part of that irreducible core. I could give several other, personal, views, but that is a separate debate that will have to be held.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that it is very dangerous if the European Court is given too much power, because unlike all other courts, including national courts, the European Court cannot be overruled by national Parliaments. A European Court judgment can be overruled only by a treaty amendment ratified by all 27 countries, and for all practical purposes that is non-deliverable. The whole issue of democratic consent comes to the fore again.
	When the Government—possibly successive Governments—have looked at the question of Europe à la carte, they have always shied away from it. It is not just the people in Brussels who do not like it; the Government also tell us that the concept is unattractive, because if there were a two-speed or à la carte Europe, Britain would lose influence in Europe, we would be in the outer core and it would be dreadful. I acknowledge that if we do not go the whole way with other member states in new areas of integration, we lose some influence. By not being part of the single currency, we have lost some influence compared with what we might otherwise have had. But people who make that argument seem to ignore a fundamental part of the issue: influence is not an end in itself; it is normally the best means by which one protects and advances one's national interest. One is obliged to one's electorate to protect one's interests, not one's influence. Influence is simply one means to an end, so one should never give up one's interest in order to maximise one's influence. However, the opposite may occasionally be true: sometimes it is worth accepting a reduction in influence if that is the only way to protect one's interests, which are much more fundamental.
	A reference was made earlier to the French Government's decision on NATO and joining the integrated military structure. Fifty years ago, General de Gaulle decided—rightly or wrongly; I pass no judgment—that it was in France's national interest to opt out of the integrated structure of NATO. As a consequence, for the past 50 years, France has lost influence in NATO. De Gaulle knew that that would happen, and indeed, it did. Over many matters, France has had less influence than it would otherwise have had, but, until President Sarkozy, successive French Governments concluded that, nevertheless, the national interest justified the decision. If they come to a different view now, it is again a matter for the French to decide in terms of their own perception of their national interest today.
	Let us not therefore hear that the argument against an à la carte Europe is that if the United Kingdom were not in the inner core and part of a two-speed—or some other phrase that may be used—Europe, it would lose influence, as though that were somehow the end of the debate. We must identify our interests, but the public will ultimately tell us what they are, and we must respect that.
	Those of us who are not diehard Eurosceptics trying to get Britain out of the European Union either directly or indirectly as quickly as possible must do some fundamental thinking. I say to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and to his shadow Cabinet colleagues that in the weeks and months that lead up to what may be the next Conservative Government, we must ensure that we not only give very careful thought to what we will do in the first few days, weeks or even couple of months after we have come to power, but make a very careful judgment about how we can be respected members of the European Union—not by abandoning our principles and beliefs, but by giving much greater and more careful thought to the kind of Europe that we are trying to construct.
	We must not spend the next couple of years merely saying what we dislike about the present European Union and about the way in which the Government are carrying out their responsibilities—although those criticisms are justified, and I share them. It is precisely because there is, for the first time in 10 years, a serious prospect of our becoming the Government of the United Kingdom, and because we say that we remain committed to our membership of the European Union, that we must, I humbly suggest, do even more work to articulate the kind of Europe that we wish to see—not merely in terms of aspirations but of how it will function and how it will, if we are successful, enable the people of the United Kingdom to be content with our membership of the European Union so that we do not have more generations of this kind of discussion and debate and this kind of alienation. It is painful and disturbing if British membership of the European Union has become so dysfunctional. It must be articulated and progressed in a way that can make us at peace with our membership of the European Union, or the whole operation will be hardly worth having.
	I believe that there is a solution. It is not more integration or the giving up of national sovereignty but a flexible European Union that respects the right of each member state, not only the United Kingdom, to determine the degree of integration that it is comfortable with. I hope that the Conservative party can take the lead in articulating in some detail what that means and why it is a practical, realistic and attractive option for this country and for Europe as a whole.

Gisela Stuart: Whenever we prepare for European Council meetings, I am reminded of an old Jewish proverb—"If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans." We think about what is going to happen, and it is then overtaken by events that completely dominate the discussions. This time, the unexpected event was the Irish no vote. Typically, the result of that vote was declared not only on Friday 13 but on the saint's day of St. Anthony of Lisbon, who is the patron saint of lost causes. I am tempted to think that God was laughing on that day.
	However, perhaps the result was really a narrow escape. We should remind ourselves that the Lisbon treaty process started in 2001 with the Laeken declaration, which posited 64 extremely sensible questions that went to the heart of saying that the people of Europe were no longer connected to their institutions. We made the first mistake by suggesting that a constitution would be the answer to that disconnection. When the constitution was eventually produced, the people of France agreed with my laptop. Whenever I typed in the word, "Giscard", it suggested replacing it with "discard", which is clearly what the French people did. However, we did not take enough note of that, and ended up with the treaty of Lisbon. We were given several reasons why we needed it, and people genuinely thought that we did, whether for enlargement, for greater efficiency, or because otherwise we would grind to a halt, but none of those things happened. We are now in great danger of expending even more political capital on trying to push through something that will not be in the long-term interests of the European Union.
	The Lisbon treaty has always contained three fundamental tensions that will come back to bite us in the long term. The first—this is not about an à la carte Europe or one of two speeds—concerns those countries that are in the eurozone and those that are not. Despite appearing to be a success, if we compare the development of the euro with that of the dollar, it is clear that it is not yet an effective single currency. We will see over the next few years what happens to the property market in Spain, in Greece, in Italy and even in Ireland. If the countries that are in the euro are to have a proper functioning currency, they will sooner or later require deeper political integration.

Gisela Stuart: The first example of what Lisbon did not address, which needs to be addressed at some stage, is the tension involved in those two levels of economic integration. The second is that we never really addressed—even though it was touched on—the fact that the countries coming into the European Union were mostly smaller ones. The western Balkans were mentioned earlier, and the former Yugoslavia has to be included in some shape or another, if we look at the map of Europe. The disproportionate rights of smaller countries compared with those of larger countries has led to tensions increasing in the case of unanimous votes.
	When we go to the next stage—and I want Turkey to come in—in which we have voting systems with an element of population weighting, we will have one very big problem. In other words, even for the most committed pro-Europeans who wish to see further enlargement, Lisbon would have run into the buffers. If Lisbon is driven through against the wishes of large sections of the population, we will not be able to come back to make further required changes, while obtaining consent. The problem is that for a long time, the European Union operated on the basis of implied consent, and when it asked for explicit consent, it did not get it.
	We have to address most of those problems in national Parliaments, and we have to change the way in which we do business. I do not want to go into point that today, because Ministers are going to a meeting at the weekend at which extremely important issues will have to be dealt with. One of them is defence. The most significant announcement has been France's declaration that it will fully rejoin NATO. I urge the British Government to welcome that and to take a close look at the French defence paper. It states that it wants to address what it calls the rather modest defence spending in the EU. We have to face up to the fact that it is no good wanting new defence structures, or saying that we need procurement agencies and so on, if countries keep cutting their investment, or more to the point, if they are not prepared to produce combat troops. It is futile to keep talking about peacekeeping commitments when we do not have troops to deploy to create the conditions where peacekeeping is required.
	I hope that another issue will be addressed at the meeting, or that Ministers will engage the House on the matter. I understand that the European Commission has approved two policy documents calling for greater co-ordination of immigration policy between member states. There is a suggestion that a European support office on asylum will be set up, and that there will be greater co-ordination in dealing with unexpected inflows of asylum seekers on a Europe-wide level. That is, politically, an extremely sensitive matter. Such proposals are essential in some areas, such as dealing with our borders, but I say to Ministers that we need to debate the issue in this House—not in some obscure Standing Committee or sub-Committee—and engage the population at large. Such decisions require the consent of the House, and I hope that Ministers come back to the House on that point.
	In the debate so far, quite apart from what was said about Ireland, we have heard a whole lot of platitudes. We are all terribly concerned that food prices should be cheaper and that energy prices should be cheaper. I find that particularly when I listen to the Lib Dem speeches. I know that English is not my first language, but I did not think that I needed comprehension lessons. I have no idea what they are saying—it is full of motherhood and apple pie, and I have no idea of where they stand. Their language is all about "making it better", "making it more significant" or "going further", but I never have any idea of where they are going, or what those things precisely mean. We can dismiss their comments for the moment.
	I will finish because I have become rather tired of speaking in these debates, and the Minister has probably become tired of listening to me over the years.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady and I may have had different views about how good the Lisbon treaty was for Britain and for the rest of Europe, but does she agree that what we need this weekend is some kind of decision as to whether the treaty is dead—if that is what the Irish Government say—or whether there is a clear plan for what they intend to do next? What Europe needs least of all is months and months of more uncertainty and institutional navel-gazing, which is not helping to achieve any of the objectives that we want to achieve within Europe?

Gisela Stuart: I am very grateful for that intervention, which could have been made—and has been made—in this House for the last three years. It has usually been accompanied by, "Unless we have a decision, Europe will grind to a halt. We will not be able to do any of the things that we want to do." Actually, we can. On defence, all the great progress has been made when Britain and France have come together and made the significant decisions, completely outside the European mechanism. Europe has gone on working. The big decisions are not concerned with institutional problems. Mainland Europeans think that if we create the institution, we will create the political will. Actually it is the other way round. The reason things do not work is often because we do not have the political consensus.
	We have had a decision and certainty. Whether we shed tears about the fact that the treaty is dead or not is neither here nor there. We have a decision and we can go on focusing on all the things that are important. I could not see a single thing that the Foreign Secretary said was important that under the current institutional arrangements within the EU, provided we create the political will—separate from the institutional arrangements—we could not do. Let us stop talking about it and start delivering.

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is a familiar pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), just as we followed each other round Europe for 18 months in the fruitless attempt to find a way forward for Europe in the Convention on the Future of Europe. I agreed with much of what she said, as I did then. From our different party perspectives, we concluded that that effort was doomed, simply because it was replicating the old Community method of top-down. That has now met its destiny with the Irish electorate.
	For many decades, even centuries, the Irish question has haunted British politics, and successive British Governments through the 19th and 20th centuries had to grapple with it. Now it is Europe that has the Irish question, and the institutions of the EU have shown themselves to be quite unable even to comprehend the shock that has hit them. Those of us who have been to Brussels in an official capacity can understand this because the official mind is largely untroubled by questions of accountability and democratic control. The whole Brussels machine really can only go forwards.
	The Irish are quite clearly signalling something different, and it is disgraceful that the British Government are colluding with others and with the Brussels elite to find a way round this, rather than respecting it. All the comment—we heard this from the Foreign Secretary earlier, and in his statement on Monday—has been about what the Irish have got to do next, but for an Irish voter there is no next step on the treaty. Irish voters have said that they do not want it. The Irish Government have suffered a defeat, too, so it is not for them to second-guess their people, either.
	I find it rather chilling that people are now making excuses. Again, we have heard that in this debate. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who has now left the Chamber, said that the Irish were really voting on something different, and that many of them were deluded and mistaken, thinking that it was all about Irish neutrality and Irish abortion. I find that intensely patronising. We just have to respect the fact that people do not like what they were given.
	What people were given was bafflingly complex. That relates to another excuse offered—that the issue was all too complicated to put to a popular vote—but whose fault was that? It was not the fault of the Irish; it was the fault of the people who drew up the document. Let us remember that the Laeken declaration of 2001, which started this failed reform process, instructed the Convention to simplify—that was not a suggestion; it was an instruction—instead of which it made the process more complicated.
	I am sure that a lot of Irish voters—perhaps most of them—did not read the whole text. But then, did every hon. Member read all 290 pages of the Lisbon treaty? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and I had to read it—we drafted the wretched thing—but sane people do not read hundreds of pages of Euro-jargon. The Irish perhaps should have been given the opportunity to read the treaty. Indeed, the no campaign asked that every Irish household or voter should be sent a copy. However, that idea was turned down by the Irish Government, because they knew perfectly well that the more people saw of the treaty, the less they would like it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I sympathise with my hon. Friend for having to read the treaty in French, because it was probably a worse read than in English. What he says is true: the House was treated with systematic contempt, through the failure of the authorities to produce and publish a document in our own language. He therefore makes another telling point. If the problem of politics is complexity, which renders the people unable to express an opinion, perhaps we ought to abolish general elections, too, because they are quite complicated political matters.
	The essential message in the treaty is actually quite simple. The Lisbon treaty was about transferring more powers from people who are elected and can be removed to people who are not elected and cannot be removed. I discussed the matter with those connected with the Irish referendum after the event, and they told me that that was the general theme running through people's concerns. There was a feeling among the Irish electorate that in future, if the treaty was enacted, their choices, in general elections or otherwise, would not be reflected in the decisions that affect their lives. That is ultimately a matter for democracy, which must be respected. The Government are in bad company in proceeding with ratification.
	We were all entertained again by the Liberal Democrats trying to explain their lack of principle over this whole episode. It is almost comic that amendments that they not only supported but promoted in this House were rejected by their colleagues in another place. The Liberal Democrats do not even have the consistency of their lack of principle. Perhaps I can therefore consign them to the sidelines, which they are always doomed to occupy.
	What concerns me rather more is that the Government are apparently colluding with some bad company abroad, in other member states. Senior politicians, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers have already been quoted in the debate as saying effectively that the Irish decision should be ignored. We heard from Mr. Barroso, the President of the European Commission, that the treaty is still alive. I am reminded of President de Gaulle's description of the Commission as a
	"conclave of technocrats without a country, responsible to nobody",
	so perhaps we should not be too surprised. Of much greater concern is the President of France saying that Europe now needs a "special legal agreement" to try to get around the problem, and a number of German politicians, including the Foreign Minister, Mr. Steinmeier, saying that the way forward is somehow to get the Irish to withdraw from the process of integration, at least temporarily, so that the rest of Europe can go ahead.
	I find it very worrying when German politicians suggest that treaties should be broken. Europe has seen a lot of that in the past. If we have learned anything, it is perhaps that we have the glimmerings of a rule of law in Europe that all countries respect. It is, I think, intolerable when senior Ministers even suggest that the clear requirement in article 48—that all treaties require unanimity—should somehow be ignored or forgotten.
	If I were to make a prediction, it would be that the attempt to get the Irish to vote again will fail, but that Brussels and a number of member states will segment and disaggregate the treaty of Lisbon into smaller parts in order to get it through in a series of smaller measures. They will meet first to see what can be done without treaty change; they will then see what can be done to get as much as possible through with treaty change, but without triggering another Irish referendum; then they will try to get the residue through, possibly triggering an Irish referendum, but attaching it to an enlargement treaty, defying the Irish to vote no to such a treaty, which on many other grounds, they would probably support. In other words, they will do everything possible never again to allow the peoples and electorate of Europe to vote on a full treaty change. I think it terrible that the European Union, which likes to lecture other people about democracy, is so contemptuous of democracy in its own territory.
	There is an opportunity for the Government, and I want to be a little more positive about that. The Government have an opportunity, if only they could take a lead. The first thing they must do, apart from respecting the Irish result and not proceeding with ratification here, is to stop all the preparatory work. During the Foreign Secretary's speech, I asked him whether he would stop the work that we know is being done on setting up the European foreign ministry—what is now called, in Euro-speak, the External Action Service. We know that such work has been going on for two months, as we discussed it last week in the Foreign Affairs Committee. In answer to my intervention, the Foreign Secretary said that the lunchtime discussion on Monday had been cancelled. That is not a full answer to my demand that all work anticipating the treaty must now stop. The Government have an opportunity to do that at the Council meeting at the weekend. Will the Minister for Europe give the House an assurance in his concluding statement that on this, as on other matters, the anticipatory work going on at the official level will stop forthwith? Otherwise, the suspicion will persist, in Ireland and elsewhere, that whatever people do or however they vote, the treaty and its provisions will go forward.
	As for the future, we must recognise quite candidly that the seven-year reform process has failed because it was never tried. The Laeken declaration, which I have mentioned, was quite a radical document. It accepted that the Europe that existed then was too interfering and too complicated, and that it lacked democracy. It said, portentously, that Europe was at a crossroads and had to choose. It indicated that democracy was at least as important as efficiency, but that was entirely forgotten when the Convention started to meet. I know, because I was there.
	There was never the slightest effort to simplify or, as the Laeken declaration said, to create a Europe closer to its citizens. Instead, decisions were to be taken further away from the citizen, because more powers in more policy areas were given to yet more powerful institutions in Europe, which had created the problem in the first place. The Government are now fond of saying that they are against too much institutional tinkering, but that is exactly what they were doing in the Convention—very unsuccessfully, of course. They tabled more than 200 amendments to the draft constitution, of which less than 10 per cent. were successful, so we know that they did not agree with the outcome. However, they had to make the best of that, and with full help from the Liberal Democrats they are denying the people of this country a vote on it.
	We must now accept that that botched reform is over and we need to try something entirely different. There is another Europe trying to get out—a Europe of co-operation and joint working. It is quite wrong to suppose that the EU is the only way that Europe can work together. I am an internationalist. I believe in the fullest measure of international co-operation to tackle common problems—not just with our European neighbours, but with the rest of the world. I am not a narrow-minded little Englander or nationalist. I will leave the "little European" attitude to those who believe that the EU has a monopoly of international co-operation in Europe.
	During the passage of the Lisbon treaty Bill through the House, the Government were fond of pretending that the treaty was all about tackling climate change. There are only six words about climate change in that treaty. All the measures now being taken on climate change are being taken on the basis of the existing treaty, and I happen to believe that a lot of that is quite damaging. The absurdly unrealistic target on renewable energy will create fuel poverty in this country, because we have discovered a way to transfer money from poor people in towns, who are having their fuel bills increased, to quite well-off farmers who are having wind farms put up on their land. That is all given momentum by European directives. I also believe that we are making an error on biofuels.
	I do not think that the EU is wise on those matters, but the point is that any co-operation that we need to undertake can be done under existing treaty powers. The same is true of enlargement. One of the lies we were told during the Convention process was that the European constitution was essential for enlargement to take place. I was accused of being against enlargement because I was against the European constitution. We were told that Europe faced paralysis and that it was quite impossible for Europe to get any larger and accept new members under the existing treaty powers, but we then had two large waves of enlargement and there has certainly been no paralysis.
	Today, the European Scrutiny Committee met. I am a member of that Committee. Thanks to the usual genius of the House authorities, all the foreign affairs and European Committees meet on the very day that we debate Europe, so we cannot attend. However, I can tell the House that the European Scrutiny Committee would have looked at—and probably did look at, if it had a quorum—42 new measures, proposals, and draft directives and regulations from the EU. That is not paralysis. We could do with a bit of paralysis, actually. It might slow down the rate of European legislation. The fantasy that was peddled to us all as fact, which was that we somehow needed all the institutional changes in order to admit new members, has been shown up.
	We need to get away from the old top-down, regulatory, legalistic EU. The EU is fantastically old-fashioned. No other trade bloc in the world has followed the EU model. I was interested in the reform plan advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). It is exactly that kind of creative thinking that the EU now needs. His idea is for a flexible EU in which countries can opt in and out of specific measures in accordance with their national interest and the priorities of their Governments and electorates. That might be a way forward, but I personally am cautious about assigning a core area of responsibility, because that would prompt a number of important questions.
	For instance, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend said that it was essential to retain the single market. I am not so sure. I am a free marketeer. I believe in the free exchange of goods, services and capital. I believe in free trade as one of the great dynamic enrichments of the modern world, but the single market in the EU has become an excuse not for free trade but for over-regulation. Indeed, the single market articles in the existing treaty—articles 94 and 95—have been used to expand the EU's jurisdiction into areas such as health in ways that were not foreseen by those who were trying to promote free trade. Again, the customs union model that has been followed by the EU has not been replicated elsewhere.
	I am ashamed that this country does not have a trade policy that might do much to conquer or alleviate world poverty. It is illegal for this country to make trade reduction agreements with poor countries. It has not been illegal for North American Free Trade Agreement members to do that, but it is in Europe, because we have a customs union so all our trade negotiations must take place in Brussels via the European Commission. The unique structure that we have created and called the single market, which has its own rules and over-regulation, is a model that we need to re-examine. I would certainly prefer a free trade agreement in Europe to the existing free market.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in a debate on European affairs just before a European summit meeting. I know that he has been following my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) around Europe on this subject for many years. I was surprised that he did not contain his delight at the Irish referendum result even more than he did: in fact, I am surprised that both he and my hon. Friend did not simply say "I told you so" and sit down. As the result was exactly what they had predicted, they must take great joy in the news. I do not, and I shall explain why.
	This is the usual debate before a European summit meeting, involving the usual suspects. I was very impressed by the Foreign Secretary's speech: I thought that he spoke extremely well. In only 10 days he will celebrate the end of his first year as Foreign Secretary. He has the second best job in the Government—after, of course, the job of Minister for Europe, held with such distinction by the right hon. Member for Wells on the Opposition Benches and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) in the Government.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) also made his usual speech. It included some cracking jokes, but I had hoped that the biographer of Pitt the Younger would try to be more of a statesman than a comedian. It would be nice during one of these debates to hear something of substance from the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has a pretty large intellect and has made many contributions to debates on Europe outside the House, but who somehow fails to put that across on occasions such as this.
	How wonderful, though, to hear the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), deliver his heavyweight speech on what Europe is really all about. The right hon. Member for Wells thought that he was directing his comments at the House, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was primarily directing his comments at the Conservative Front Bench. He expressed the view—with which, obviously, I disagree—that the Conservative party was on its way to government, and said that it was therefore important to think deeply about the European issue rather than to oppose for the sake of opposing. His comments will be well worth reading in  Hansard, because they illustrate the importance of a substantial debate on the European Union—which, sadly, the House never has, partly because some event always overtakes us, such as the result of the Irish referendum.
	I think that the Government's position on the Irish referendum is absolutely right. It must be up to the Irish people to decide what is in their best interests. They have elected a Government, who will make their position very clear this weekend at the summit in Brussels. That is the right time, and the right opportunity, to find out exactly where the Irish Government's policy on the issue is going.
	Of course the wishes of the Irish people cannot be ignored. It is important for us to be able to test public opinion on the wider European issue, but specifically, as the Irish have decided to do, on this particular issue. The result has to be respected, and it is now up to the Irish Government to decide how to proceed. It would be complete madness to stop the ratification of the treaty in the House. How and why should a result in Ireland halt democratic processes in the British House of Commons and House of Lords?
	Regarding that, I use as my text a comment made by the right hon. Member for Wells—albeit a few years ago—on the "Today" programme:
	"we've got everything to gain by an open debate, to assure the public that Parliamentary powers are being respected in this matter...It's absolutely right that that should be discussed and thrashed out in the House of Commons which is ultimately the guardian of our liberties."
	He was right, and I am right to cite his statement, because surely it must be up to the House to take such a decision.

Greg Hands: My particular point of objection, however, is related to the charge that the Conservatives were not in favour of enlargement. May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the very first debate held in this House after the fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989? The first person to speak out in favour of enlargement was actually my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), in his then capacity, I believe, as Minister for Europe. It is actually the Conservatives who called first in this House for enlargement into eastern Europe.

Keith Vaz: I have a great deal of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I am surprised at him, the promoter of a Bill to give a public holiday in support of the contribution of the Polish community to our country. It was a Labour Government who allowed, rightly, the A8 citizens to come here. It is not our job to tell the Germans and the French what to do, and they lost out because the presence of so many people from those central and eastern European countries has hugely benefited our country. I am glad that the Germans and the French did not raise the restrictions and that we were one of only three countries that did so, because we have benefited so much from the Polish, Hungarian, Czech and Romanian citizens who have come to this country. In the end, those countries will all raise their restrictions, because they will realise that that is the right thing to do.

Keith Vaz: That is the first time that an announcement on an office in the all-party group has been made on the Floor of the House in a debate of this kind. No doubt, it was because of the unique position that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham holds in the affections of this House that the announcement had to be made then. I do not think that either he or his Conservative colleagues would be in favour of qualified majority voting on immigration—no Conservative Members are rising to support that view. They like the fact that we have kept an opt-out on that area, so that it is under our absolute control.
	Although not many Labour Members wish to speak—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) will speak—because we agree so passionately with the Government's policy and we do not really dissent from what the Foreign Secretary said earlier, I know that many Conservative Members wish to speak, so I shall make just two final points.
	It is important that our Government make the case for Europe, although not because of what has happened in Ireland, as the Irish people have rejected the treaty. I, like other Members of this House and, indeed, like Europe itself, was surprised that the Irish people did so, because Ireland is one of the countries that has most benefited from the European Union. It is a wake-up call for this Government, in order to remind them of their responsibility constantly to make the case for being part of the European Union.
	I did not know whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was being cheeky when he suggested that the Foreign Secretary was off on a roadshow around the country or whether he just used that as an opportunity to talk about my previous roadshow, allowing me to make fun of his previous roadshow—the one designed to save the pound, whereby he sat on the back of a lorry. It was rather like "Wacky Races" going round the country. I do not know whether that suggestion was true—perhaps the Minister for Europe could tell us in the wind-ups—but I would welcome the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe taking part in a roadshow around the United Kingdom. Perhaps one of them could travel on the top deck of the bus and the other on the bottom deck. Why do we not want to go to make the case for Europe to the British people?  [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) remembers my roadshow. I did not visit his constituency, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will, because it is important that we make that case to the British people.
	As far as I can gather, there is common ground on Britain's remaining in the European Union. That is the position of Conservative Members, with the exception of a few—we have heard from them today, although they have not spoken in this debate—who want Britain to come out of the European Union. I think that it is still Conservative party policy that we remain part of the European Union. Perhaps the shadow Minister for Europe will remind us of Conservative policy in his winding-up speech. The shadow Minister for Europe and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks should therefore also be part of the roadshow—it should be an all-party roadshow; perhaps we can save a seat for the Liberal Democrats, too.
	As a united Parliament, we can remind people of the benefits of being in the European Union, and we must not forget to do so. When we forget to do so, those who peddle myths try to convince the British people that they get no benefit from being in the EU—so we constantly need to make that case. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe worked extraordinarily hard during the passage of the treaty Bill through the House and I am sure that he is exhausted and would like to go back to Scotland for the weekends to spend time in his constituency and with his family, whom he has no doubt not seen for many months. However, this is an important role for him. He has to be at the summits, but it is also important to talk to the British people about the benefits of Europe.
	In this debate, where we have the usual suspects, I have made my usual speech about the necessity for the Government to keep on making the case. To fail to do so would mean that at some time in the future, when we decide to put the European question in one form or another to the British people, they could reach their judgment on the proper information, rather than after a three-week campaign that can easily be defeated by the tabloid media, which—with one or two notable exceptions—are very opposed to our even being in the European Union. We should not waste the opportunity of the next two or three years before we have to decide on other crucial issues. Let us go out to the British people and tell them how important the European Union has been for this country and how vital is our role in Europe.
	Although we could not convince the Germans and the French to do what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham suggested, we are still a hugely influential voice in the European Union. Many of the A8 countries have a great affinity with what Britain has done, because they recognise the role that we played in the enlargement process. We must always be vigilant in ensuring that our key role in the European Union remains, so that we are an influence for good and can advance the British agenda to the rest of Europe.

Daniel Kawczynski: No, the no campaign was absolutely scrupulous and honest throughout.
	We in the UK have many heroes who are also trying to do all that they can, and I must pay tribute to Stewart Wheeler, who has done a great deal to force the matter before the courts. I pay tribute as well to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and I was extremely heartened to hear today that he is making probing advances about securing a judicial review of the matter in the High Court as a result of the Irish no vote. I applaud him for that: I think that history will be kind to him and to others like him, and that the roles they have played in scrutinising the Government will be remembered.
	All countries are equal, under the rules of the treaty and the process of ratifying the constitution. Ireland has said no, and that is just as important as any German rejection of the treaty would be. Therefore, the process of ratification must stop immediately.
	On Monday, the Foreign Secretary faced repeated calls to stop ratification. We asked him to respect the views of the Irish people, but he refused point blank to stop the ratification process. I think that the Government's conduct is deeply damaging and flawed, as they have not acknowledged that one of our closest neighbours and allies has expressed its reservations about the constitution in no uncertain terms. That has not caused even a flicker in our Government's determination to proceed with ratification.
	In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said repeatedly that he did not want to bully Ireland, but that is exactly what is happening. Immediately after the Irish no vote, our Prime Minister, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel were no doubt on the phone to one another to see what they should do. Sarkozy went off to Poland to try to put pressure on the Poles, and Merkel did the same with the Czechs. Our own Prime Minister is allowing them to do that, because they want a scenario in which 26 countries are on one side of the fence, and one country—Ireland—is on the other. That is classic schoolyard, bully-boy tactics: a large group of countries is saying, "Look, you are just one small country, and we are not prepared to have you veto this treaty." I very much regret that.
	The constitution is another step in the ongoing and perpetual process of power grab. I feel passionately about that. Just as a locomotive's furnace needs coal continuously, so the EU needs to grab more power from individual states. That gives it more power, but it also gives it relevance, which is important. If it were just to sit back and carry on with all its administrative work, it would not hit the headlines or move its aspirations forward. That is why the treaty is yet another attempt to take more power from our own sovereign Parliament, and why it must be challenged.
	We have had crumbs of comfort in the past when taking on the federalist agenda of the European Union. I remember fondly two such occasions, although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. The first was when Margaret Thatcher secured the rebate at Fontainebleau in 1984. I remember cheering her on—admittedly, I was only a child, but I was extremely happy that she managed to secure a rebate for the United Kingdom. The second time I remember being extremely happy was when John Major managed to block the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, the Belgian Prime Minister, to the post of EU President. That gave some comfort although, regrettably, we got the even more federalist Mr. Juncker from Luxembourg instead. At the time, however, it was a crumb of comfort.
	We need new leadership in order to be strong towards the European Union's federalist agenda. We need to be strong, yet diplomatic, and I believe that our next Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron—forgive me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—will be exactly that. He will be polite, diplomatic and measured but, unlike the present Prime Minister, he will stand up to the federalist agenda of the European Union, and he will battle and fight for British interests.
	My next point goes back to the argument made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) about national interest and influence. I listened to his words extremely carefully and intently, and I have never heard such a poignant, important statement about European Union affairs in this Chamber. Our country's interests are far more important than the influence that we have in the European Union, and I am sure that our next Prime Minister—the present Leader of the Opposition—will take on board the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend made today.
	I should like to make a few points about the Liberal Democrats. During the debate today, we have all had fun scrutinising their extraordinary position. They abstained in the vote in this Chamber on the referendum, yet they voted against the referendum in another place. That is quite extraordinary and deeply flawed behaviour. I intend to say as much as I possibly can to my own electorate in Shrewsbury to highlight the conduct of the Liberal Democrats on this matter, because it is thanks to the Liberal Democrats that the people of Shrewsbury will not get a referendum on this very important issue. I am convinced of that, and I feel passionately about it. Some of my constituents want federalism, and some want to come out of Europe, but they are overwhelmingly united in wanting a referendum. They want the people of this country to have a referendum, and it is the Liberal Democrats who have prevented my constituents in Shrewsbury, and all the men and women of our country, from having the same say as the people of Ireland.
	I want the European Union to focus on the issues that are important to my constituents. Last week and the week before, people came to my surgery to talk about petrol prices. I met a delegation of 50 hauliers last week, and they are extremely worried about what is happening to the Shropshire haulage industry. They want the European Union and our own Parliament to focus on that issue.
	As chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, I have met King Abdullah and put our concerns directly to him. I am leading a delegation out to Saudi Arabia again in November, and we will continue to ask the Saudi authorities to increase oil production to ensure that costs come down.
	Those are the sorts of issues that my constituents expect the European Union to work on; they want it to try to work, as a powerful, united bloc, with our Saudi allies and other allies from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to help them out. They do not want technical constitutions that are extremely difficult to understand, and that nobody wants.
	I saw the Minister for Europe nodding when we talked about reading the constitution. This is how sad I am: I read the EU constitution from cover to cover in French. It was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life, not only because I do not use the language that often nowadays, although I studied French at university, but because it was very difficult. The more I read, even in French, the more alarmed I was. Of course, at that stage, the Government had not deemed it necessary to get us an English version.
	I am conscious that others want to speak, so I shall wrap up my comments. I feel passionately about working for my constituents on the things that matter to them. As I have said to the Minister, my constituency of Shrewsbury is extremely agricultural. He knows about my interests in the agriculture sector. I am the chairman of the all-party group on dairy farmers. This country is undergoing one of the most extraordinary dairy farming crises imaginable. Ten years ago, 47 cattle were slaughtered in Shropshire as a result of bovine tuberculosis; the figure now is 1,000 and rising. Interestingly, the French have managed totally to eradicate bovine TB. Less than 0.004 per cent. of herds in France have bovine TB. I intend to table an early-day motion encouraging the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work in unison with his counterpart in France, so that we can learn from the French experience, and find out what the French have done completely to eradicate bovine TB. I urge the Minister for Europe to focus on those things—the things that matter to farmers and hauliers in Shropshire—and not constitutions, which are not what my constituents want.

Richard Shepherd: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), whom I find engaging, candid and rather open on the subject—much more so than some of us who have perhaps battled longer in the field. When Disraeli was asked, in an election campaign, what the Conservative party's theme was, he answered, "The constitution." Of course, that part of the 19th century saw Britain's long journey towards something that was key to our development—the extension of the franchise. The Government should be subject to the popular will. That was the beginning of what we call a democratic age—a term that is used in spades. Government should ultimately be obedient to the needs and judgment of the people. That is what we call accountable government. I repeat that, because that is now such an archaic dream or ideal and is seen to be of less significance in the wider world.
	Clearly the European Council meeting will in truth be dominated by the result of the Irish referendum. The Sherpas, as I think they are called, may have already sorted out positions on all the great themes that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, so the Council will have a position on some of the issues, and the arguments will be more restricted. Central to any movement within the European Union—that is how it defines itself—is some sort of resolution of the Irish question, to use another 19th century expression. I am well disposed towards the Irish; I was born in Aberdeen, on the Celtic fringes, and I know that Britain could not be Britain without all the peoples who have been a part of these islands for a very long time. I have a special regard for the outcome determined by the 1.5 million or so people who voted in the referendum.
	I was going to analyse the Foreign Secretary's statement, "No, we must not bully Ireland. No one has any intention of doing so." The Prime Minister took up the theme today and said that it was not for us to tell the Irish what to do. He said it was for the Irish to tell us, "What they want to do".
	I notice that the arguments have become conflated. The Prime Minister did not mean the Irish people, because they have spoken, and they have said no. What he meant was the Irish political system or political class. On that extraordinary Friday, we were told that the referendum result would be announced at about midday but, in fact, there was a long delay. I watched "Sky News"—that is an advertisement—for a long time. The first thing we heard was not the Irish returning officer announcing to the Irish people the outcome of the referendum but Mr. Barroso—another President, only of the European Commission, but a President none the less—who was giving a press conference in Brussels, telling the EU, or the citizens of Europe, the result of the Irish referendum. How curious that the first port of call for democratic trust with people should be to tell the European Union.
	I suspect that that was all pre-cooked—that is the truth of the matter. Mr. Barroso said that we must respect the outcome. In fact, it was even more ambiguous. Clearly, there was shock: how dare the Irish do that? After all, were they not the beneficiaries of a great deal of money? Was their progress not dependent on the EU? That is partly true—there were large transfers of cash, which continue to be made—but I do not think that the Irish, or the British, are bought just by cash. The revolutionary change in Ireland's prospects came about because of the Irish people themselves and the decisions that their Government made, on education and on opening their society. The change has been dramatic. European can take some credit for the transfer of money but, ultimately, it was the triumph of the Irish themselves. When they made a decision, the result was pre-empted by the President of the European Commission—we will have a plethora of presidents under the new constitution—who announced it first in Brussels, which makes me think that it was an attempt to subvert what the Irish said.
	Some 53 per cent. of the Irish electorate voted. We are not remotely near that figure in our European elections, and it is not the case across Europe as a whole. There must be some country where the voting figures are higher, but that shows how disengaged the people— [ Interruption. ] With such a Prime Minister, there is almost no alternative. He is perpetually clear in what he wants for Europe, and his electorate is even smaller than the Irish electorate. There is a great anxiety. We have been told by the two former members of the Convention in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—that it was meant to bring the people of Europe closer together. The Convention took place a long time ago, and as with much of my time, it will feature when I look back at what I have done in Parliament. The European question has shadowed all my time in Parliament, and it has not been settled.
	I was interested to learn that the Foreign Secretary was going to tour Britain. That must be one of the tough decisions to launch something—I am not sure what—that, as the Prime Minister tells us, is in the long-term interests of the British people. Does it show us that the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office regard Britain as a foreign country and that it is necessary to tour to tell it about the benefits of EU leadership? I am distressed by the British Government's response to the outcome of the vote in Ireland.
	Britain, if it is anything, is about a democratic and accountable form of government. Can it not be that the Irish people, in their own way, have come to a conclusion that many, I think, throughout Europe—we know, certainly in the Netherlands and in France—have come to, namely that the treaty process cedes too much not just of national power but of character? They want to remain Irish, as I want to remain British. The French, who are also anxious, think the same, too, and they voted no. But what we are faced with is popular revolt and Bourbon leadership.
	During the Maastricht debates, we heard from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), the Liberal Democrat, who is now their home affairs spokesman. He told us that unanimity and consensus are one and the same thing. I ridiculed that at the time. We have a language, and there are distinctions, shadings and therefore different purposes for the use of words. However, in the minds of many Europeans, dissent cannot exist, so even if I say, "I don't agree with this at all, but if you want to go ahead, I could just about live with it," they call it unanimity. I do not consider it to be unanimity, and—I suspect like many millions throughout Europe—I know that the measures are no longer connected with accountability to anyone.
	How can the president of a bureaucracy—no less—in Brussels announce the most intimate of political judgments by a nation? Let us just ask the question. It was inappropriate. But what he went on to say was even more inappropriate. He is trying to fix up unanimous acceptance by all the other leaders of Europe's constituent parts, including the subordinate constituent parts, with the British, the French and the Germans leading. This constitutional necessity of Ireland's could be the saving of the process. If the process were to falter and fail, I should care to think—however unlikely this is—that the people themselves might come into play. One cannot cede power.
	Incidentally, despite what the Government say, the world now knows that we had only 19 hours in this Chamber to debate clause 2 of the Bill in respect of the treaty. I hear the propaganda roll, because this is a world of spin. It says that between the two Chambers, we have had 30 days, but we know how the guillotine was constructed. There was no opportunity to analyse, argue or develop a theme on Report for the legislation that went through this place. It denied the process legitimacy, and legitimacy was what the Government were seeking. The Irish vote also denies it legitimacy.
	We are now being governed—it is intolerable, and we must have a new system—by a bureaucracy in Brussels which, effectively, has no check on it. The European Parliament has no check on it. Therefore, one thinks, "What is the problem?" Essentially, the problem is that that bureaucracy is trying to form a new political dream. We had that debate in spades with the curious proceedings during the treaty process. We did not discuss the legislation but for 19 hours, yet we heard endless repetition of how we did not appreciate the value of the new world.
	All the way through is a link that the Government shied away from. Even the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), perhaps dreaming of her ticket to Brussels, could not understand that democracy had anything to do with it. "This is intergovernmental", they say, "We great leaders determine this matter for our people."

Richard Shepherd: This is about democracy. The European Parliament is not accountable to the British people but to many diffuse electorates. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Who knows who these people are, given the d'Hondt formula that the Government foisted on us? The whole point is that the European Parliament is not accountable. No one can sack it.
	There is no European common public opinion. There are no common European newspapers or common European political parties. We do not identify with the national institutions of France or Italy. We may admire them or respect them—we may even love them—but they are not ours and they are not accountable to us. We have therefore constructed for Europe an abomination—something that is unaccountable, and now arrogantly unaccountable. Who elected Mr. Barroso? Not the people of Europe. It was another stitch-up between these consensual people.
	This is a very important debate because it tells us everything about the weakness of our Government in their declining and last days. It tells us everything about how they cheated their way through the House of Commons and are dependent on the ridiculous position of the Liberal Democrats to thrust the conclusions of Mr. Barroso, the German Chancellor and the French President on to our on-the-back-foot—let me put it no more strongly than that—Prime Minister. The tide has gone out on this Government. We see that as we go round the country. If there is one thing that the Foreign Secretary will learn so that he does not give performances such as today's or his statement on Monday, it is just how disconnected this Government are from the people of Britain. That is very important in itself. We cannot operate in isolation without carrying the people with us, and the Government are not interested in what the people have to say on these matters.
	That is why we in this House should send a powerful message that we believe profoundly in democracy, even if this Government do not. They talk about the parliamentary processes when the very thing that got us into Europe in the first place was a referendum. There has been no popular expression on the question of whether the way that this has developed is appropriate for us. Deceiving and cheating on the question of a referendum will come back to haunt both the Labour Members who put it in their electoral manifestos.
	Goodness knows what will happen with the Liberal Democrats; they will presumably present three candidates representing all views in each constituency. That should square matters. They have even deserted the Chamber now, although a Liberal Democrat is sitting there, pretending to read an important document, so that they can claim that they were represented in the Chamber.
	I shall bring my remarks to a close because others wish to speak. This has gone too far. It is not good enough to have a Foreign Secretary who thinks it necessary to travel around Britain. He has a constituency, after all. Does he not meet his constituents? Are they so different from those in the rest of Britain? The same thing applies to the Minister for Europe. We heard from the former Europe Minister, and I must not work myself up about him. I was sitting here quietly in the Chamber, and he started his speech, referring to the usual suspects. This man did the first tour—do we remember that? He is the only man in Britain to say that he had met only two Eurosceptics. I can understand why. I was sitting here quietly and I should know that every time he comes into the Chamber, I will be drowned in treacle, or grease, or something, as he declares his unstinting adoration for his masters in office. That is the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the suspect Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who got there by a device that required a suspension of the Standing Orders of the House.
	That is the system of Government we are living under now. I am smiling, but most of us think that it is corrupt, denigrating and it belittles the country that we are sent to represent. The Government need to state clearly, "We cannot proceed with ratification. We will not proceed with ratification until such moment as there has been a referendum, which we promised."

Mark Lazarowicz: Until the last few lines of the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), which I felt were an unnecessary personal attack on the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I would have recognised the sincerity and passion with which the hon. Gentleman presented his case. I hope that he will understand that if I were even to attempt to respond directly to the points that he has made, I would not be able to deliver the contribution that I have prepared for any reasonable length of time— [ Interruption. ] Maybe even longer, indeed.
	I restrict myself to the observation that in the case that the hon. Gentleman has always made with passion in these debates, he paints a picture of a European Union that none of us recognise as existing. He paints a picture of a superstate—some kind of creature or creation that is imposing its will on the British people and the British state. The fact is that we are active and full members of the European Union. We play a role in formulating its decisions, and I want us to strengthen our ability to play an active role in it, which is why I hope that at the end of the process, the Lisbon treaty will come into force, although I recognise that that is much less likely following the decision of the Irish people last week.
	I mentioned earlier that I had missed part of a speech because I was at an all-party group meeting. I was also present for some of the discussions of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There is a delegation here at the moment, and interestingly, as part of its study of the governance of this country, and the influences on our Parliament, it paid a visit to the EU. When I speak to parliamentarians and others from parts of the world that are not part of the EU, I find that they almost invariably admire what the EU has done. They recognise it as a success story, and it is only within the EU, particularly within the ranks of the Conservative party in this country, that a picture is painted of an EU that is not a success story. It is regrettable that we continually hear that sort of negativity towards the EU from the Conservative party and others.
	As others have said, we certainly must not seek to impose our views on the people of Ireland after their referendum. But it is also the case that the decision of the Irish people should not pre-empt our decision in the UK, or pre-empt how we approach the EU and the Lisbon treaty.
	The Eurosceptics on the other side of the House and elsewhere who are now celebrating the no vote in Ireland—along with the unholy coalition, ranging from the extreme right to Sinn Fein, that got that vote—are saying that as a result we should immediately cease our ratification process. I note that when the Spanish people voted in favour of a previous treaty a couple of years ago, the same Eurosceptics did not immediately drop their Euroscepticism or suggest that all their hostility towards the EU should now be dropped. No; they continued to argue their position, just as those who want to see the Lisbon treaty ratified are perfectly right to argue for our position within our democratic processes here in the UK. The Government are absolutely right to proceed with ratification.

Mark Lazarowicz: I fully understand the position, although I believe, as would most impartial and dispassionate observers of the Irish referendum—if there are any such—that the reasons why the Irish people voted no were numerous. Some were related to domestic politics, although I am not disputing for a moment that the Irish people, for whatever reason, did say no to the European reform treaty. That cannot be got round. Equally it is fair to analyse the various reasons why they chose to reject that treaty. If in the negotiations that are to follow it is possible to address those concerns, that seems the reasonable type of negotiation that should take place between the member states of the European Union to try to get an outcome, which at the end of the day requires unanimity. If Ireland or any other state does not ratify the treaty, clearly it cannot proceed. No one is disputing that anywhere in the House; I certainly do not dispute it.
	Undoubtedly the motivation for that rejection in Ireland was one that had its source in many different places. Whether the Lisbon treaty is eventually ratified or not, it is important that the undoubted scepticism that was expressed clearly by the Irish people, and has been expressed here in the Chamber and in other countries, be addressed and, where possible, addressed in such a way as to persuade people of the merits of our active engagement in the EU.
	It is particularly important for those of us on this side of the House and elsewhere who want to see Britain playing an enthusiastic role in the EU to address the defects of the European system if we are to create greater confidence within the British people, as well as in other countries, in the EU and its institutions. That is why I shall spend most of the limited time available to me on areas that the EU, whatever happens, must address if it is to have a chance of gaining the confidence of the European people.
	The first issue is that the EU must address the way in which it operates. Part of the motivation of the Lisbon treaty was to simplify the decision-making process to allow the citizens to be reached more quickly and effectively in a number of areas, for the betterment not just of Europe but of our national interest. Even without the Lisbon treaty—if it does not go ahead—Members across the Chamber, whatever their position. will have to accept that the EU is not always a model of effective political decision making. It is not always a place where the big issues are prioritised over the smaller ones. That is partly because of the institutional structure, but I must say bluntly that it is also because of political failures—not failures by any one country, but failures over a number of years to concentrate on the key issues that Europe should be concerned about. Whatever happens after the ratification process is completed—or alternatively, if it is not completed—the political leaders of Europe must ensure that they turn their attention to the key priorities for Europe and do not become deeply immersed in the minutiae of European internal politics. I suspect that there is agreement across the Chamber on that.
	A second area that Europe must address much more coherently and consistently is the challenge presented to the older EU members by migration from the new member states. The suggestion from some of the reports of the campaign in Ireland is that one concern was the effect on Ireland of migration from the new EU member states. Everyone in the Chamber knows that the issue comes up at the grass roots in communities in our country, too. There are people who try to make political capital out of such concerns, but they are real concerns and they must be addressed, not just in Britain, but at European level.
	I would like the European Union to play a much more active role in ensuring that people's concerns about the realities of the challenge posed to older EU member states by migration in the European Union are addressed. I would like a greater concentration on tackling racism in Europe and on working towards social cohesion among the different populations in member states, to try to reduce some of the potential for conflict, which undoubtedly could arise if migration in Europe is seized upon by various political forces for their own extreme reasons. That is something that we have seen happen in some countries, as many hon. Members will be aware.
	A third issue that must be addressed is the relationship between the Members of the European Parliament, and the British people and Members of this Parliament. The issue is not just about addressing the relationship between MEPs, and the British Parliament and people, as well as the other constituent member states of the European Union; rather, we must be blunt and recognise that one of the biggest factors leading to cynicism towards the European institutions stems from the revelations about the behaviour of some MEPs in relation to their personal lives and their parliamentary expenses.
	It is obviously rather dangerous to venture on to that territory, when we in this House rightly come under scrutiny in connection with our expenses. We all know that we have to put our house in order. However, there have been many reports of what some European parliamentarians have been doing. It would appear that hundreds of thousands of pounds in expenses from some Conservative MEPs have gone into family companies. I even understand from press reports that one Liberal Democrat MEP—it may even have been the leader of the Liberal Democrat MEPs, and I am sure that his claims may be right—has said that for years it was common practice for parliamentary expenses for travel to be claimed at the full price, even though he had to pay a lower rate, and for the difference to be donated to the party. That has not been challenged. That kind of behaviour, whether by a Liberal Democrat or any other MEP, is not only wrong in itself, but understandably leads to public cynicism about how those institutions operate.

Greg Hands: It is always a pleasure to take part in European debates. My constituency was mentioned a few speeches ago by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who talked about the large number of EU citizens coming into Hammersmith and Fulham. May I say that he is absolutely correct in describing that process? In fact, one in 11 of my population—or certainly of my electorate—is an EU citizen. That is true if we count the total electorate for a local or a European election. It is the second highest proportion anywhere in the UK—second only to my next-door constituency of Kensington and Chelsea. The most recent figures estimate that in Hammersmith and Fulham 6 per cent. of the population are Polish.
	We have the largest French community, and we are also the centre of the Romanian community in London. However, it is not obvious that all that is down to the EU or, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East said, down to the Nice treaty, as we also have the largest Australian community in the UK, as well as a large American community. The EU has played a role, but it would be simplistic to say that everything is down to the Nice treaty.
	The five days since Ireland said no to the Lisbon treaty will turn out to be a tremendous missed opportunity for the UK. The UK should be taking a lead in the discussions that are now going on and in declaring the treaty dead while at the same time calling for immediate action radically to reform the EU. We may disagree on what direction that could come from, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) touched on something important when he referred to going back to the 2001 Laeken declaration and there may be merit in the proposals made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) for an à la carte Europe.
	We need to go back a little to Laeken and start the process again, but, unfortunately, UK Government policy was made pretty clear on Monday by the Foreign Secretary, who told us:
	"We should allow the ratification process to continue in all countries; we should then see what the Irish decide to do and plan our next moves after that."—[ Official Report, 16 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 712.]
	That sounds like the wait-and-see of the 1990s when the UK could be taking the initiative in Europe and trying to find a workable solution.
	Our position could be very strong at the moment and we have considerable leverage. First, to state the obvious, we are uniquely close to Ireland. I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister had a meeting with the Irish Prime Minister, but that is getting towards the heart of the problem: our Prime Minister met only the Irish, which implies that our official view is that the Irish are the problem, whereas in my view Brussels is providing the problem, not Dublin.
	Secondly, the fact that we have not yet ratified the treaty—at least until later today—gives us considerable leverage in discussions on where to go from now. Thirdly, our people would certainly vote the same way as the Irish if they were given the chance. Again, that gives our Government, potentially, a lot of leverage. The contributions that we heard earlier and in previous debates suggest that there could be some cross-party consensus in the House on what the EU could and should be doing and the direction that it could and should be taking.
	There seems to be, or there could be, a consensus. Remarkably similar speeches on EU reform have been made in the last year by, first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, and, some time later, by the Prime Minister. I was in Brussels last February for a speech given by my right hon. Friend in which he talked about a 3G Europe: global poverty, globalisation and global warming. He said that we do not need more integration, more centralisation and more powers. It was a compelling speech.
	Let us compare that with the Prime Minister's comment in the House on 22 October 2007, which he made when presenting his "Global Europe" document. He said that
	"the priority for the European Union must now be the global challenges that we face in relation to employment, prosperity, competitiveness, climate change and security."—[ Official Report, 22 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 19.]
	Occasionally, we hear Liberal Democrat spokesmen, assuming that anybody can find out what Liberal Democrat policy is, sounding rather similar. Those should be the priorities for the EU.
	There could be—I stress, could be—a consensus of some kind on the reformed direction that the EU could be taking. Obviously, there are strong disagreements here on the merits of the treaty, and certainly on the process for pushing it through, but there might, nevertheless, be a UK consensus on EU reform.
	Returning to what has been going on in the past five days, I believe that time is of the essence. We should be active in European diplomacy. We should be convincing our partners that Lisbon is dead. More importantly, we should be discussing a new way forward for Europe, but we cannot, which is part of our problem. At present, our Government are as hobbled as the European Union. They are deeply divided and, in my view, are experiencing too many domestic problems—not least in their own party—to be able to fight the corner for British interests in Brussels.
	I have seen the Prime Minister showing no leadership at all over the past five days, and barely playing a role in the process. Part of the reason, I think, is that he is fundamentally uncomfortable with foreign affairs. He is not willing to engage and is deeply uncomfortable with some of the arrangements, although he made a fleeting appearance in the monastery to sign the treaty in December. He talks of British jobs for British workers and so on, and he strikes me as someone who is not engaging with our partners.
	We have very few friends in Europe, and almost no influence. It is very difficult for us to take the initiative. At a time when our Prime Minister is almost mute, President Sarkozy is meeting four central European premiers in Prague in an attempt to shore up support for the treaty. This is a great and unique opportunity, but I do not think we are going to grab it with the current Prime Minister in power. The opportunity may not present itself at such a convenient time for years, and I think history will record that this was a very unfortunate time at which to be leaderless and rudderless in Europe.
	What is the immediate future of the Lisbon treaty? I believe that the worst thing that could happen would be a second Irish referendum. What is more, Irish politicians appear to agree with me. Back in March, the Irish European Affairs Minister Dick Roche made this interesting comment on his website:
	"there will only be one referendum held in Ireland on the provisions of the EU Reform Treaty... There is no plan B and there is absolutely no possibility of this Treaty being subject to a further renegotiation. The idea that we can reject this Treaty and have another Referendum as happened with the Nice Treaty is a delusion. That cannot and will not happen... Without Irish ratification, this Treaty 'is dead'."
	A strong message has been sent, not only by the Irish people last week but by the Irish Government, that the Lisbon treaty is dead and it is time to move on.
	There are also problems in the Czech Republic. Václav Klaus, its President, welcomed the Irish referendum result, calling it a
	"victory of freedom and reason"
	by the common people over
	"artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy."
	The chairman of the Czech senate called for EU ratification of the treaty to be halted. We await the decision of the Czech constitutional court. It should be borne in mind that the decision was referred to the court by the ruling ODS party in the senate, which voted 48 to four in favour of the referral. My main point is that we need leadership from Britain, and we need it desperately now, when this opportunity has been presented to us.
	I want to say a little about another issue that is unconnected with the European Union: our relations with Russia. Let me raise two points briefly. First, there is continuing concern about the interruption of the BBC World Service Russian language service. The World Service teamed up with various local FM partners a couple of years ago. Unfortunately—some would say predictably—the FM partners have dropped us. A couple of years ago, the eastern European language services of the World Service were generally closed down. A few of us thought that that was a pity, but that it was somewhat understandable that we should no longer subsidise broadcasts in Polish, Czech and Romanian. However, I think there is a compelling reason for us to subsidise broadcasts in the Russian language. Our local partners let us down, and while it was almost predictable that pressure would be put on them, I think it very regrettable.

Greg Hands: I am afraid to say that I strongly disagree with that statement. We are much stronger with Russia when we are a collection of strong voices, rather than a single strong voice. It is deeply regrettable that the direction in which the EU is heading is forcing us to give up our independent voice.
	I do not want to stray too far off the topic of Russia, but the European Scrutiny Committee considered something last week that would mean that Britain no longer had an independent position on whaling, because a common EU position would be agreed before each meeting of the International Whaling Commission. It was argued that all our EU partners share our view on whaling—they happen to be rather anti-whaling. I have no particular axe to grind on whaling, but the UK should be able to have an independent policy on whaling, and it is absurd to have a common European position on it.
	Returning to Russia, I want to mention briefly the desperate need to bring about justice for the family of Alexander Litvinenko. I recently met his widow, Marina Litvinenko, who is a very brave lady who is visiting as many capitals as possible to publicise the case of her late husband. She recently went to the US Senate and she has met the all-party group on Russia. She has also held extensive meetings with her Member of Parliament, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
	It is a year and a half since the deed happened and we might be in danger—I very much hope not—of forgetting what a terrible act took place in late 2006. A British subject was assassinated—murdered in cold blood—somewhere on the streets of London. I cannot remember whether it was entirely clear whether that happened in a sushi bar or in a hotel. I am not sure whether it happened with the connivance of a current foreign Government, but a foreign Government must have been involved in providing the polonium-210 isotope in the first place. I urge all colleagues to sign early-day motion 1601.
	When the Prime Minister meets the Russian President at the G8 this summer, I urge him to press again for the extradition of those whom we want to question about the assassination. Since the deed took place in late 2006, there has been a new Prime Minister of this country and a new President of Russia, and I fear that either or both will seek to brush this unfortunate incident under the carpet instead of confronting it and ensuring that justice is done. I hope that our Prime Minister will show strength on that issue when he meets the Russian President, because it would be a great tragedy if the Litvinenko family did not see justice.

William Cash: I do not know whether the lack of Members in the Chamber is any reflection on the circumstances relating to the Irish vote. However, speaking for myself, I am a very angry politician, because it is outrageous that, after an electorate have a referendum, the rest of Europe—I will not mince my words—gangs up on them, which is basically what is going on, even though that referendum was held under article 29 of the Irish constitution of 1937. That electorate were entitled to make a choice, and they did so by a substantial majority and on a 51 per cent. turnout, although some say that it was slightly higher.
	The actions of the British Government now are unlike their actions on the European constitutional treaty. Under the former Prime Minister, when the Government realised that the French and Dutch were no longer prepared to go ahead with that treaty, they abandoned their Bill on it, even though that Bill had received its Second Reading. I tabled 400 amendments after Second Reading and I would have been interested to hear Ministers' responses to them.
	That Bill was dropped at the end of that Session and reintroduced in the second Session. Nothing was done about it—it never had a Second Reading: the Government recognised that the Bill could not proceed because the treaty could not be ratified. Now, we have a similar situation, despite the fact that the Bill in question has been through this House and through many of its stages in the upper House. Today, as I speak, the matter is being debated in the House of Lords on Third Reading, but the principle remains the same: there is no basis on which this can be legitimately validated.
	I went to the High Court yesterday and made an application for judicial review. It has been turned down, and I do not complain about the fact that there is a difference of opinion on this issue, but what I do say is that there is no political basis—and, I believe, no legal basis—on which the Government can proceed to ratification.
	I described to the Foreign Secretary the statement that he made the other day as disreputable, and I regard it as disreputable that the Irish people should be pushed around in this way. That is basically what is going on and I, for one, in common with many other people in this country, am baffled and angry. This is symptomatic of the overall attitude, the culture, of the European Union.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has argued for an 'a la carte Europe. I am not quite sure what its core functions would be under his prescription. I personally have always argued for a Europe of co-operation—as I put it, European trade, yes, European government, no. As I have argued for as long as I can remember, I do not believe that we should let the supremacy of this House be subsumed by the will of other nations where our vital national interests are involved. I am in favour of European co-operation and of European trade, but I do not believe that we should voluntarily so neuter ourselves as to preclude our passing enactments that are inconsistent with the European Union when it is in our vital national interests to do so.
	I know that the leader of our own party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), has said repeatedly that we will repatriate powers in respect of economic competitiveness. I take him at his word, because it is absolutely essential and in our vital national interests that we do so where we need to achieve economic competitiveness. I would go further. I believe that there is a whole range of matters on which we need to renegotiate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spoke of renegotiation. I agree with that entirely and have argued for it for many years.
	We also need to revisit the treaties that this Lisbon treaty would have given us the opportunity to revisit. The Lisbon treaty amalgamates all existing treaties under an arrangement, as the European Scrutiny Committee said, substantially equivalent to the previous constitutional treaty. It affects all the treaties, and this was the moment when we should have reasserted our supremacy.

William Cash: No, I am not talking specifically about withdrawal. That has never been one of my objectives, but it may happen for the reasons that I have just given. If there is not a proper renegotiation, we are moving, particularly in the light of the Irish vote, the French and Dutch votes and, previously, the Danish vote, into very dangerous waters. We are moving towards a situation where it is in the interests of all member states to sit round the table to renegotiate these arrangements.

William Cash: I believe not only that we are committed to the renegotiation, but that it is a thoroughly laudable process. I know that my right hon. Friend agrees with me on that subject. Fundamentally, this European Union is not working. It is not working in relation to the economy—in an earlier intervention on the Foreign Secretary, I cited the examples of Italy, Greece and Spain in that regard. The European Union is not working in many of the eastern European countries, and it is clear that the Irish people have concluded that it is not working for them either. It is not working on the questions of agriculture and foreign policy. We hear all this talk of a European army, but where are the Germans and where are the French in respect of the front line in Afghanistan? Their grand talk about a European army is outrageous.
	The same applies to the question of stability in Europe for the business community. Mr Verheugen tells us that there is £600 billion a year of excessive regulation, and the Better Regulation Commission tells us that there is £100 billion a year of over-regulation in this country alone. Such matters require renegotiation.
	We cannot escape the fact that this system is not working. That is why the French, the Dutch and the Irish are taking the positions that they are. This dangerous situation could lead to civil disorder in the countries of Europe as food prices increase, as there is a degree of pressure on commodity prices and as we feel the impact of the fuel situation and all these other matters that are being discussed today in a broad context, some of which the Foreign Secretary addressed. When such issues start to bite, it is a prescription for disorder in a system that is inherently undemocratic—and which overturns decisions legitimately arrived at by the people—and which has a landscape that could be renegotiated and changed, but those in power do nothing about it. People will take power into their own hands if they are treated in that arrogant way.
	Those of us who have argued that case are winning the argument. A book was recently published called "The Making of Eurosceptic Britain". Some people would even argue that the Labour Government have come to a certain degree of reality, although that is denied by their attitude to the Lisbon treaty. We need to recognise, however, that although we are winning the argument, we are not winning the battle of the establishment—be that the Whips, the establishment of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the courts or the diplomatic service. There is no recognition that Europe as it stands is not a working proposition.

William Cash: Indeed, and I was delighted when my good friend Vacla v Klaus made a powerful statement as soon as the Irish result came through. People recognise that this is not working. They know that in Downing street, in the Foreign Office and all over Europe, but nobody will do anything about it. That is why I am angry. I am frustrated by seeing something that is going so badly wrong and so obviously calls out for proper remedy. There is a need for renegotiation, but also for alliances and co-operation. There is no need for this stubborn, arrogant European Government. As far as the UK is concerned, Mr. Barroso is the President of the European Union by courtesy of the European Communities Act 1972. He is appointed and he does not have any legitimacy, in the sense in which our Prime Minister, Ministers and Government do. Governments can be turned out, and this Government will be turned out in part because of their attitude on these matters.
	The way in which the Government have supinely accepted the Euro establishment attitude to the Irish vote is in itself a demonstration of what is going badly wrong. The Irish people's attitude is like the old aphorism:
	"I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
	The reason why I cannot tell;
	But this I know, and know full well,
	I do not like thee, Doctor Fell."
	People can make their political analyses time after time, but the plain fact is that the project is not working. The Irish people have examined it and they have said that they do not like it. The same goes for the other countries that voted in the same way. This is a dead treaty. It needs renegotiation and democracy.
	To my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) I say that we do need a post-ratification referendum if we cannot get one any other way, because it is vitally in our national interest to make certain we get the kind of Europe that suits this country. It is not enough to say that Europe has gone far enough. It has gone far too far, and it is time for my party and this House of Commons to insist on the supremacy of Parliament. That supremacy is based on the election of Members of Parliament in general elections: it does not come by virtue of laws passed by other countries with which we do not necessarily agree.
	I shall conclude by pointing out that the latest opinion polls demonstrate that the arguments that I put are right, and that the people of this country want renegotiation. This treaty should have been binned as soon as the Irish vote was known. That is exactly what happened with the European constitutional treaty, and it is a disgrace that this Government have done almost nothing about it.

Bernard Jenkin: That is absolutely right, and I am grateful for that intervention.
	I remind the Minister for Europe, however, of what the previous Prime Minister said after the last referendum. On 20 June 2005, he told this House that "the treaty cannot proceed". In a very dramatic speech, he told the European Parliament:
	"The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening?"
	Sadly, the answer obviously was that the people to whom he was speaking were not listening, as they did exactly what he said that they should not do—they brought back a revamped version of the constitution, pretending that it was a completely different treaty.
	The crisis that the EU faces is considerable, although its leaders believe that they will be able to get past it, just as they did with the previous crises. However, that will not mask the very deep crisis of democracy and legitimacy that now exists in the EU. There is no possibility of the EU working in its current form unless it completely denies democracy and separates itself from the normal mechanisms of consent that law making in democracies usually requires. That is not acceptable.
	I want to look more closely at the crisis facing the EU. The disillusion in Ireland partly reflects the fact that the EU has not kept up with the pace of change or the trend towards globalisation that have been evident over the past 15 or 20 years. The EU has used the four freedoms of movement—of goods, services, people and capital—not as great liberating principles but as a licence to create an unaccountable law-making bureaucracy.
	According to the Heritage Foundation, the UK has the freest economy in Europe—and the sixth freest in the world—whereas the economy of the eurozone is rated as merely the 27th freest. A MORI poll of 1,000 British business chiefs in 2006 revealed that 54 per cent. of British businesses felt that EU over-regulation outweighed the benefits of membership of the single market. The EU Commission itself admits that the annual cost to business of implementing single market regulations is about €600 billion. That is far more than it estimates that the single market adds to the EU's gross domestic product each year—a mere €225 billion. So the costs and benefits of the single market versus the regulation are out of kilter.
	We have become choked by excessive regulation, and the EU's economic growth has become anaemic compared with that of its international competitors. Since the Lisbon agenda in 2000 proclaimed the ambitious target of achieving 3 per cent. annual growth in GDP over the next decade, which would make the EU
	"the most competitive economy in the world",
	it has barely managed half that level and its growth now lags well behind the growth in the United States, let alone that in China and India. When US unemployment recently hit 5 per cent., stocks on Wall street started to crash in reaction. In the EU, however, more than 7 per cent. unemployment is regarded as a cause for celebration.
	The problem for competitiveness is essentially one of over-regulation, but even under the existing arrangements, that will continue to be a problem for the EU. Colleagues have already referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has stated:
	"I do not believe it is appropriate for social and employment legislation to be dealt with at the European level"—
	and a Conservative Government will—
	"restore social and employment legislation to national control."
	It is not only the Conservatives who are saying that. Labour's own Trade Minister, Lord Jones of Birmingham, has said:
	"If we allow Britain's economy to become hidebound in this way"—
	by introducing excessive new regulation—
	"emerging economies like China and India will walk all over us."
	But the EU Commission is still wedded to regulation as an abiding principle of the EU's very existence. Indeed, the EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, told an audience in June last year:
	"Remember that it is the basic rules of the single market which have allowed European integration to progress...In short, no single market, no European project and no Europe puissance".
	What a powerful statement he was making about the very nature of the EU.
	The main attraction of the single market is not the extent of regulation, but the fact that it is a tariff-free trade area with rules on competition and state subsidies. Even the Prime Minister admits that the EU now accounts for 50 per cent. of all regulation in the UK, yet there is nothing intrinsic to a customs union that requires it to carry such a large body of regulation on matters ranging from the noise emitted by lawn mowers to the rules governing the employment of part-time workers.
	Listening to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, I reflected on the question: what is the single market? I do not believe that the single market has to be represented by the huge body of regulation that is imposed upon us today, but I put it to my right hon. Friend that, if we are to change that, we must necessarily commit ourselves to some form of renegotiation. The logic of his position is that he is now in favour of renegotiation, although there might be different means by which that could be achieved. I entirely agree with him that we need to escape from the unbearably adversarial tone that has dominated the relations between British Governments and the European Union over the past 20 or 30 years. We want a genuinely respectful, co-operative relationship, in which our mutual needs are understood.
	I reflect on what Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said last summer when contemplating the revival of the Lisbon treaty, although I point out that I do not agree with all of it. He said that
	"integration is vital for our Continent. And if the UK doesn't continue with us in this process of integration, conclusions must be drawn...we must find a 'special status' for Great Britain. If the British want to be apart, well, then we must be able to offer them that, and they must be able to accept."
	I have no idea whether such special status could be negotiated with our European counterparts. I think that it could be, if we had the will. The fact that a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool European federalist such as Giscard d'Estaing is perhaps saying the same thing as my Friend the Member for Stone shows that different views can be accommodated in the European Union, and would allow us to move to a different kind of Europe.
	The obstacle to achieving some kind of special status might be that we would not be the only country seeking such status, as demonstrated by the referendums in the Netherlands, Ireland and even France. Many countries might want special status within the European Union. Perhaps that is the kind of à la carte Europe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea talked about, but it would mean having to address the existing treaties.
	As for the current position, our Government are missing out on the opportunity to start a new debate about the sort of Europe that we want. The Prime Minister is cowering behind the institutionalised consensus in order to curry favour with Governments. That is influence without power. Labour is failing to take the lead in Europe. That kind of policy does not put the UK at the heart of Europe. We are just followers going with the flow, without influence over events. Instead of using our leverage in Europe to change the direction of the EU, the Government seek simply to polarise a spurious debate in our country. They say that it is not possible to renegotiate without leaving. I have heard a Minister say that it is not possible to go into McDonald's and order a lobster thermidor—a clever quip, but the EU is not McDonald's. In reality, the UK is in an unassailable negotiating position to achieve change in Europe.
	The present constitutional direction of the EU has clearly run its course, as was demonstrated by the latest referendum in Ireland, and our EU partners enjoy a £38 billion trade surplus in goods with us. Germany alone has a trade surplus with us of £15 billion. The Prime Minister is fond of declaring, as he did yesterday, that 3 million jobs in Britain depend on our membership of the EU, as though it were we who were economically vulnerable. In fact, 6.4 million jobs in continental Europe depend on trade with the United Kingdom. Germany exports more goods and services to the UK than we do to it. Some 3.2 per cent. of German gross domestic product is exported to the United Kingdom. In France, the figure is 3.3 per cent; in Spain, it is 3.6 per cent.; in the Netherlands it is 7.4 per cent.; in Belgium it is 8.4 per cent.; and in Ireland it is 11.6 per cent. Imports from the EU 27 to the UK have grown by an average of 13 per cent. over the past two years.
	Given the strength and extent of trading relations between the UK and the EU, it is clearly ridiculous to suggest that we will somehow be drawn into a trade war with our European partners simply because we want to negotiate in our own interests in the European Union, instead of carrying on along the present trajectory. It simply would not be in any nation's interests to start a trade war between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union just because we insist on rolling back some of the acquis and seek opt-outs from some of its more damaging aspects.
	Failure to change direction would not only damage our national interest but fail to address the interests of Europe as a whole. By failing to seize this latest chance to exercise leverage, the Government are failing to settle the issue of the European relationship, which has dogged Governments of both parties and exasperated our continental partners. The Government have failed to restore voters' faith that something can be done about an issue on which they complain so much.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being able to attend the full debate? I was in the Chamber to hear the opening speeches, and I have listened with great interest to what has been said, and agreed with much of it.
	The Irish referendum result was a breath of fresh air. It was a tremendous victory for ordinary people standing up against the bureaucracy and the elites of Europe, who think that they know best, and what is good for us. The Irish have shown that ordinary people know what is best, and what is good for them. I have the privilege of representing the largest Irish community in the eastern region of England, so I have a large Irish community in my constituency. Last Saturday I went to the Luton Irish forum, and congratulated many of my Irish constituents on a splendid result. We were all very happy about it, and there was a certain amount of justified pride.
	There has been much suggestion that because Ireland is a small country, the vote is not significant. However, it was almost the only country given the chance to vote. If other countries were given the chance they, too, would vote no. That is not just my view but the view of Simon Hix, professor of European and comparative politics at the London School of Economics, who spoke to the European Scrutiny Committee this afternoon. In the  Financial Times he wrote:
	"The EU has lost three referendums in a row, and most other publics would have voted No if they had been given the chance."
	I defer to his better knowledge, and I am sure that he is absolutely right. It would have been the case in Britain—there would be a large majority for a no vote in Britain, if we had the opportunity to hold a referendum. I hope that at some point there will be some kind of referendum.
	I want to explain why the Irish voted no, because it has been suggested that people did not know what the referendum was about. We are told that there was confusion, so they voted negatively because they were a bit nervous. There have even been suggestions that when those referendums took place the vote was all about xenophobia and obscurantism. In fact, on my terms at least, the vote is often won for the no campaign because working people and trade unionists think that the EU is not on their side. Indeed, recent decisions by the European Court of Justice, including on the Viking Line case, suggest that the rights of employees, workers and trade unionists have been overridden by the interests of the corporate world, business and employers, which is worrying.
	Fifteen years ago, the trade union movement thought that social Europe was what it was all about, which is why some trade unionists were enthusiastic about the EU. It was always clear to me that that was not the case, and Europe has turned against trade unionists and workers in recent times. The European Court of Justice decisions are very significant indeed. Yesterday I was at the headquarters of the International Transport Workers Federation in London, and I saw some of the posters that had been used. They were about the crushing of workers' rights, and they were no doubt displayed all over Ireland. They had a big impact on working people, who thought that the treaty was not a treaty for ordinary people but a treaty for business and the market. It was not a treaty to protect their interests.
	Looking back to the French and Dutch referendums and, before them, the Swedish referendum, we see that it was the left that voted no in large numbers, because those people thought that the European Union was for business and employers, not for working people. For a long time, we have been sold the idea that there was an element of social protection, but it was not true.
	I heard another anecdote from an MEP who stumbled into a meeting in Brussels three or four years ago, and was shocked to find a discussion going on between MEPs and officials about whom they would appoint to the social affairs commission. They were openly saying that they wanted someone who was popular but weak; someone who would not fight the corner of working people and trade unionists very strongly; someone who was acceptable but not very effective. They chose a small eastern European country—I will not be so unkind as to suggest which one—and a very nice but rather ineffectual man as the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. It was a way of having a token workers' representative who was not very powerful. He was not a strong socialist from a large country, but a rather feeble commissioner from a small eastern European country that was a recent entrant to the EU.
	There has been a cynical attempt to shift the European Union in the direction of business and the global corporate world—against the interests of working people. That message is getting across. I spoke at a trade union conference yesterday, and the people there clearly thought that was happening.
	The forced privatisations of the railway industry are breaking up the large public sector organisations, which are strongly unionised, into many fragmented parts, and weakening the trade unions' influence and their power to protect their members inside such industries. That is what is happening in at least a majority of the railway privatisations that are being forced through in Europe. Those privatisations are not about simply selling shares in large organisations, but about fragmenting them. That is the key to the issue, and workers are getting that message.
	On the economy, we have heard a number of attempts to suggest that the European Union is successful economically. That is not the case, because its growth has been slower than that in many other parts of the developed world. We in this country are very fortunate: we are able to choose our own economic strategy because we are outside the eurozone, and we have wisely adjusted our exchange rate downwards because we have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. Clearly, we were structurally in error when we had a high exchange rate. We can also choose our own fiscal, taxation and public spending policies—and quite right, too. Other countries would like to, and in future they may want to.
	Some three or four years ago, there was a hint that Italian politicians were talking about the possibility of withdrawing from the eurozone. In the eurozone there was a certain amount of panic at the possibility of such talk being abroad. Last weekend, there was even more talk about the Italians being unable to sell Government bonds. If countries cannot sell their Government bonds, they want to be able to adjust their interest rates.

Mark Francois: All those people made a fundamental mistake: they took the people for granted, and they paid for it.
	Hugo Brady from the Centre for European Reform—a think-tank that is not usually noted for its Eurosceptic attitude—described the result in Ireland as
	"a substantial no vote on a substantial turnout"
	and added:
	"It may be that forcing European integration through grand treaties has lost its impetus."
	We certainly agree.
	Given the scale of the defeat, Irish politicians, even those who were originally in favour of the treaty, have begun to concede the settled view of their electorate. The Irish Labour leader, Eamon Gilmore, said:
	"The decision of the Irish electorate has to be fully respected and there can certainly be no question of putting the same Treaty back to another referendum."
	The Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny, said:
	"the Irish people have made a clear-cut decision on the matter".
	It is incumbent on politicians across the European Union to respect the decision made by the people of Ireland.
	It has become almost a Commons tradition over the past few months that whenever we debate Europe we quote from the architect of the original constitution, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. In order to comply with that emerging tradition, I remind the House of his prediction:
	"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".
	The Irish refusal to adopt those proposals nevertheless presents the European Union with a major challenge, in terms not only of Lisbon but of the future credibility of the organisation itself. That point was touched on by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	The whole anti-democratic nature of the ratification process in this country—the breaking of the solemn promise on a referendum, the curtailed and rigged debate in the Commons and the knowledge that the Government seem set on trying to press ahead with the treaty regardless—has not exactly increased support for the European Union and its institutions among the British electorate. If anything, it has done quite the reverse. If the European constitution was plan A and Lisbon was plan B, any attempt to coerce the Irish to vote again, perhaps on some slightly modified basis, for what we might characterise as plan C, is only likely to increase resentment against the EU even further.
	In fact, that resentment is already growing. A YouGov poll published only yesterday revealed that by a margin of nearly four to one, British people think that the Lisbon treaty should be dropped, while 65 per cent. of respondents agreed with the proposition that the EU is out of touch with normal people. When even newspapers such as the  Financial Times are running editorials entitled "Time to put the EU Treaty on ice", the Government ought to take notice and give Lisbon up as a bad job.
	In light of developments, we are entitled to ask exactly what the Government's position is. At the weekend, No. 10 clearly briefed the press that it wanted the treaty killed off.  The Sunday Times published a story under the forthright front page headline, "No. 10 admits EU Treaty is finished". The Foreign Secretary was at it, too. There was an article in  The Sun on Monday entitled, "Give EU Treaty 'The Last Rites'", with the sub-heading "It's dead, says Miliband". That briefing was made to the press by the Labour party in private, but once we heard the Foreign Secretary's statement on Monday, and read his blog—although with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) in the Chamber, I have to say to him that if he wants to get into blogging, he has a lot to learn from her—it became evident that they were desperately trying to keep the treaty alive behind the scenes. We have a position where the Government, under pressure, have yet again resorted to spin. They tell the press that they want the treaty gone, but they work behind the scenes to do everything they can to save it. When it comes to the future of our country, and indeed our continent, why can Ministers not be straight with the House of Commons just for once?
	If the Government's position is confused, it is an absolute model of clarity compared to that of the Liberal Democrats. Trying to pin them down on this issue over the past few months has been like trying to nail jelly to a fence—with a large number of Liberal Democrats sitting on it while one is doing the nailing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) went through a list of their crimes in this regard, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman's speech this afternoon was so full of obfuscations that I feel compelled to repeat some of them.
	In the Commons, the Liberals argued against their own manifesto commitment to a referendum on the constitution and in favour of an in-out referendum instead. We were then treated to the sixth-form stunt of an orchestrated walkout because they were not allowed to vote on an in-out referendum, even though that does not appear anywhere in their 2005 general election manifesto. With a few honourable exceptions, they eventually abstained on a referendum on Lisbon in the Commons, although they supported our amendment to prevent the ratchet clause giving up further national vetoes without an Act of Parliament; we give them credit for that.
	When the Bill on the treaty reached the other place, the Liberals were given a chance to vote on an in-out referendum—something that they had longed for in the Commons—and when it came to that vote, they abstained again. When it came to the alternative option of a vote on the treaty of Lisbon, rather than abstain, as they had in the Commons, they voted against. They voted for the passerelle amendment in the Commons, but voted against it in the Lords. When he was asked to defend his position, the Liberal spokesman said that it was our fault that they had voted that way. This is an entirely new system of politics in this country. The Liberal Democrats can vote any way they want and then blame other parties for their voting record in the Lobby.
	What does the Liberal spokesman have to say to his colleagues in this House who had to resign their Front-Bench positions because they had the honour to stand by their manifesto on which they were elected? Indeed, what does he say to those colleagues who wanted to vote for a referendum, but were ordered to abstain by their leader on a three-line Whip, only to see their peers abstain on an in-out referendum in the other place and vote against the treaty of Lisbon a few weeks later? We would like to have questioned the leader of the Liberal Democrats directly on this matter tonight—but unfortunately Baroness Williams of Crosby does not sit in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords. It is perfectly evident that for the last couple of months she, and not the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has been running Liberal policy on the treaty.
	I hope that that point is not lost on the voters of Henley or on the people of this country. It certainly has not been lost on the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) or the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). In summary, the Liberal position on the treaty of Lisbon has been a calamity from start to finish.
	In theory, the purpose of the debate today is to inform the Government's negotiating position at the forthcoming European summit tomorrow and Friday, so let me conclude by offering the Government some frank advice. The treaty of Lisbon can come into force only if ratified by all 27 member states, a point readily conceded by the Foreign Secretary. In Ireland, ratification can take place only via a referendum. It has just had a referendum that produced an emphatic no vote on a record turnout. Rather than trying to bully the brave Irish people into voting again, our Government should admit that they have got this wrong, respect the democratic decision of the Irish people—and those of France and the Netherlands before them—go back to the drawing board and start again.
	I offer a warning. The more EU leaders continue to try to push Lisbon through in the face of democratically expressed public opinion, the weaker their support among the peoples of Europe will become. No means no, and European Governments, including our own, should simply respect that.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to wind up at the end of today's fascinating debate, in which we have had 14 Back-Bench speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), and others to whom I will refer. We also heard from my old sparring partner the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I am delighted to hear from him again, although I missed the part of his speech to do with climate change, the Balkans and many of the other big and challenging issues facing Europe. Perhaps they will be for another speech on another day.
	We also heard from two former Ministers for Europe. The spirit of relentless optimism of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) still haunts my office at the Foreign Office. We heard, too, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). There was a symbolic contrast between the different approaches of the two parties to the issue of Europe. Unfortunately, I will have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. I have to confirm that there are currently no plans whatever to go on a road tour in the UK or Europe with or without the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Minister for Europe jointly in the caravan. I say so simply out of experience. I once spent a month living on a bus with the late and brilliant Donald Dewar. Despite his wonderful company, I resolved at that point that that was an experience never to be repeated. The stories of that are perhaps for another day.
	We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary his usual thoughtful and all-encompassing speech, addressing so many of the big issues facing Europe that will be discussed at the European Council. We also heard a narrower but, as is normal, humorous speech from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). We were treated again to the image of Liberal Democrat cojones. I hope that this is the last time that I have to sit and listen to that slightly homoerotic speech from the right hon. Gentleman.
	I was delighted to hear again from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whom I have missed over the past few weeks. In the middle of one of his interventions, he rather bizarrely announced—I think it was this—the death of Dido.  Hansard will of course record properly what he said, but his comments, although not often humorous, nevertheless brought a wry smile to the face of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Wells—[Hon. Members: "Aldridge-Brownhills."]

Jim Murphy: No, but there is a slight difference. That smile disappeared when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East described the post of Minister for Europe as the most enjoyable job in Government—certainly I used to think that, until last Friday.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) again spoke with characteristic commitment. On behalf of those of us on the Government Benches, let me congratulate him on his re-election as treasurer of the all-party Poland group. He reminds us of the contribution made by those from eastern Europe to our economy and society, not just now, but in previous generations. Tomorrow I will have the opportunity to visit my old school in Glasgow—St. Louise school—which is probably the first school in the United Kingdom where the majority of the pupils are from Poland. That is an occasion that I am looking forward to.

Jim Murphy: I will try. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy, in inviting me to join his first-past-the-post group. I look forward to responding to him on that matter.
	Many issues were raised in our debate, and I think that every country in the European Union was mentioned. Sixteen countries outside the European Union were mentioned.  [Interruption.] Lichtenstein is now the 17th: I had the honour of meeting the Foreign Minister of Lichtenstein last week, and we had an enjoyable conversation. Nevertheless, I want to talk about a country in the European Union that will remain a proud and equal member, and that country, of course, is Ireland.
	I do not pretend to speak for the Irish Government. I have never taken up my entitlement to Irish citizenship and I have no intention of doing so. However, the Irish people have the fundamental right to come to their own decision, as guaranteed by their constitutional settlement. That constitutional settlement reflects Ireland's unique history, in the same way that our constitutional position, like those in all the member states of the European Union and beyond, is a reflection of our democratic traditions, arrived at through our unique experiences.
	However, we have to be clear—indeed, Her Majesty's Government are crystal clear on this matter—that the European Union is, and should continue to be, a Union of 27 equal member states. There is no question of the treaty coming into effect or being implemented in any member state unless it is ratified by all 27 member states. We wish to be absolutely clear about that again.

Stephen Ladyman: My parents were of the generation who were young adults in the second world war and they brought up their family in the years that followed. I remember that debt was anathema to them. If people could not save to buy something for cash, they could not have it. We live in a very different world. For most people, debt is a way of life. Our mortgages, our big-item borrowings and our credit cards have become the foundation of many household economies. What matters to most people now is not what we can save up for, but what debt we can afford to service.
	We can argue until the cows come home about whether that is good or bad, but the fact is that it is the reality of our modern lives. Without credit not only is our access to luxuries severely restricted, but our ability to access the basic necessities of life, such as a roof over our heads, is also at risk. If people have a poor credit rating, they can have a torrid time getting by.
	I shall give my right hon. Friend the Minister an example. A constituent of mine has just approached me for help. He and his new partner wanted to start their life together in their own home. It turns out that his partner has a poor credit rating as a result of problems in her previous relationship. She was not responsible for those problems and has done her best to address them, but, nevertheless, her credit rating has been tarnished.
	As a result, this couple have been told they cannot have a mortgage. When they approached private letting agents in my area, they were again told that the poor credit rating of my constituent's new partner would prevent them from getting accommodation in the private rented sector—and all that because one of the two, not both of them, is regarded as "financially untouchable". That cannot be right.
	I could certainly understand the financial services sector taking that view of an individual who had behaved recklessly or irresponsibly, but it appears to pay no regard to the specific circumstances of the case and is not prepared to show flexibility. I know that my right hon. Friend understands the importance of credit in the modern world. I also know that the Government have done a huge amount to give people with debt problems the advice that they need and realistic options to pursue.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will use some of his time to set out those important initiatives, but my purpose in introducing the debate is to highlight the fact that this is a problem of growing significance and that we need to think about doing more. This problem is no longer isolated or one that affects only other people. It affects hundreds of thousands of families and people just like each of us. It affects people in the south and the north, and in all parts of the UK. It affects people of every social class and every lifestyle, and in every profession. In 2006-07, Citizens Advice dealt with 1.7 million inquiries on debt.
	The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's Insolvency Service reported nearly 65,000 bankruptcies and about 42,000 individual voluntary arrangements in 2007. In addition, the debt resolution industry's estimate is that there are probably between seven and nine informal debt management plans for every person entering into an IVA. In other words, there could be 400,000 to 500,000 people becoming financially untouchable every year, and that is not including people who are shunned by the financial services sector just on the basis of their postcode or because they have a learning disability.
	If anyone listening to the debate thinks that this does not apply to them, they could well be wrong. Many people do not realise that they are in this position because they have not applied for credit for some time. They include people who had a glitch in their payment history some time ago, but recovered their position and began making payments again. Perhaps a personal problem arose, or there was a significant change in their life circumstances outside their control such as redundancy, a family emergency or a relationship problem. Such people, having regained control of their situation, are often blissfully unaware that they have a credit black mark until they try to remortgage or take on a new loan and find that their request is refused.
	A person in that category told me of his own experience. He had had a fixed-rate mortgage. When the fixed rate ended he was put on to the bank's standard variable rate, which was significantly more expensive. He tried to shop around and obtain a better deal, but discovered that he could not do so. Without knowing it, he had become financially untouchable as a result of a problem that he thought he had resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As time has gone on, he has found his extra mortgage costs increasingly difficult to finance. People in this category can find their mortgage costs increased by as much as 50 per cent., and can be forced back into debt problems that they thought they had resolved; many are even being pushed into insolvency.
	The problems faced by people who are financially untouchable have been raised with me not only by my constituents but by Mr. Richard Rubin, who is behind a website called ReallyWorried.com. I am grateful to him and his colleagues for helping me to prepare for the debate. On the website real people can talk about the problems they face, and other real people can offer solutions and advice. Mr. Rubin approached me because he was finding that the problem of debt was being frequently recorded on the site, and had specifically identified problems faced by people who had been deemed by the financial services sector to be financially untouchable. Mr. Rubin calls such people "funts", and he is reaching out to them through a new website called funts.co.uk. I hope that they will find some of the support and advice that they need there.
	I should add at this stage that I have also received excellent briefing from Citizens Advice, for which I am grateful. As we all know, Citizens Advice is an excellent source of advice for people with debt problems, and many people certainly need advice. My first request to the Minister is for the Government to review the advice and information available to people with debt problems, and to ensure that all who provide such services and advice make their own interests and biases clear. Good advice could prevent a lot of people from becoming funts, but whether advice is provided through Citizens Advice, a professional organisation or funts.co.uk, it must be good advice, unbiased advice and robust advice.
	I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), recently announced in response to the consultation paper "The debt claim process" that in future people in debt would always be offered advice from creditors to help them to avoid court proceedings. I believe that all creditors will be required to give debtors a chance to discuss their problems, and to provide details of people who can give free advice, before legal action is taken. I fear, however, that the advice will be made available only when legal proceedings are already on the horizon. I want people to be given help earlier, so that they do not get into that position.
	Too many organisations use our television channels to offer debt consolidation services and other easy ways out of debt problems, and I suspect that many are not being frank with their potential clients. Too few seem to be making it clear that if someone has a debt problem, consolidating the debt without addressing why the problem arose in the first place could well prove disastrous, and could put that person on the slippery slope towards becoming a "funt". In my view, someone seeking to consolidate debt could well already have a problem. It is at that early stage that people should talk to someone who will not pull their punches.
	Citizens Advice has provided me with a perfect example. A citizens advice bureau in Norfolk reported that a couple owing more than £62,000 had approached a secured-loan company seeking a consolidation loan. They had surplus income of £427 per month, but the repayments were £702 per month—a shortfall of £279 per month. The loan also put the clients into negative equity because they were in a shared ownership scheme with only £10,000 equity after the first charge. That company's website has a budget planner that asks for figures on income, expenditure and the amount to be borrowed, but the company itself did not seem to use it when making lending decisions. The CAB felt that that amounted to encouraging irresponsible borrowing and I entirely agree. On the subject of advice and awareness, perhaps there should be a financial education programme for people who want to understand their options better or just feel they need some help with learning how to balance their books.
	I would also like the Government to review the information that we receive on credit card bills because building up debt on credit cards is often the first step to building up a serious debt problem. I recently noticed that my credit card bill gave the advice—in tiny writing—that if I repaid only the minimum amount, it might take "a long time" to repay the outstanding sum. That is not wrong; given the rate of interest of many store cards, repaying the minimum amount each month could mean that it would take years to repay the debt. Why do we not insist that each credit card bill states the minimum amount to repay each month, plus how much would need to be paid each month to repay the loan in one year, and how much would need to be repaid to clear the debt in two years? That might stop some people getting into trouble by encouraging them to face their debt at a much earlier stage.
	The key point that I want to make is that the financial services sector needs to be made to recognise there is a big difference between "funts" who have been irresponsible and those who have faced up to their problems. Some "funts" have indeed been financially irresponsible, but some have been oversold credit or have been unfortunate. Some "funts" have faced their problems honestly, while others have not. There are easy ways to identify those who deserve to be cut some slack and those who do not, but, at present, the system treats people who have used bankruptcy as an easy way to avoid their debts almost the same as it treats those who spend years of their lives repaying as much as they can afford to those to whom they owe money.
	I would like those who work to repay their creditors to be offered the incentive of a clean credit record, with no black marks, no being treated as financially untouchable, and no waiting six years for credit blemishes to be overlooked. Such an incentive would mean more people paying more of their debt, so the financial services sector itself would benefit. It would also take advantage of the fact that people going through an individual voluntary arrangement or working through a debt management plan would learn budgeting skills and how to avoid the mistakes that they made earlier in life. Such an incentive would be a matter for the financial services sector, but the Government could encourage it to introduce that voluntarily.
	Failing that, there is a regulatory opportunity that would allow the Government to insist on such a reform. The Ministry of Justice is at a very early stage of consultation on the possibility of regulating debt management. The regulatory regime could be stretched to include the treatment of debtors by creditors and a credit repair provision for "funts" who do their best to repay what they owe. At the very least, the consultation could be used to stimulate a review by the industry of the issue and its attitude to people who have faced up to their responsibilities.
	Creditors must accept that if they do not agree to reasonable offers to repay debts, but take draconian enforcement action instead, they are piling on the pressure for consumers who can pay and want to do so. People in financial difficulties need support and understanding if they are to deal effectively with their debts. Those who want to be responsible need to be given an incentive, rather than being punished irrespective of what they do.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister might not be able to respond to all my points in his speech, especially because there is cross-Government responsibility for these issues involving his Department—the Department for Work and Pensions—the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Ministry of Justice and the Treasury. However, I would welcome a letter from him after he has had a chance to consult his colleagues.
	The problem is serious for many of our constituents and it is getting worse by the day. Being a "funt" can mean losing one's home, or being denied a mortgage or re-mortgage, or even rented accommodation. It can mean not getting a new job, being denied insurance, or not getting a credit card, and thus being denied access to the bargains available via internet shopping. It can even mean being denied a pension policy or savings account. That might be a proportionate response to the behaviour of a feckless few, but it is extreme, even for them. For most "funts", who I am convinced have learned a lesson and are proving they are willing to do their best to repay their debts, such a response is disproportionate and unfair. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Government will help them.

Stephen Timms: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for raising this important issue and drawing it to the attention of the House. It is, of course, extremely important that consumers have access to affordable credit for all the reasons that he spelled out. It is also important that credit and mortgage markets are well-regulated, so that lenders lend responsibly, borrowers borrow responsibly and consumers receive appropriate protection.
	It is important that we understand the economic context of this debate and the steps that the Government are taking to safeguard financial stability in the UK, and I want to say a little about that before moving on to the direct steps that the Government are taking to address the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. We are of course seeing global economic turbulence affecting markets right across the world. Problems that began in the US sub-prime housing market have led to a global contraction in the supply of credit in the UK; as one of the world's leading financial centres, we are no exception. In light of what has happened, banks have started to take a more cautious approach to credit risk. Lenders trying to raise funds face restricted sources of funding and higher costs for that funding. As a result, lenders are re-pricing risk, increasing the cost of lending, with consequences for UK borrowers.
	I need, however, to underline to the House that we are dealing with a completely different situation from the one that we saw in the early 1990s. The employment figures published last week broke the record once again for the number of people in work in the UK—up to 29.55 million, the highest it has ever been. Historically low interest rates and a decade of relatively low inflation remain in place—a point perhaps underlined, rather than undermined, by the degree of attention paid yesterday to inflation going above 3 per cent. The rate of repossessions in 2007 was about a third of the rate in 1991. The Bank of England's "lending to individuals" data, published just a fortnight ago, show that re-mortgaging rates across the market remain resilient. The Council of Mortgage Lenders reports that
	"contrary to popular belief, customers coming out of fixed rates in 2007 and 2008 appear to be managing the adjustment well so far".
	Nevertheless—my hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House's attention to this—some borrowers are certainly facing problems. We want to safeguard economic stability and fairness, and to make sure that support is in place for households who may need it right now.
	We are taking steps to provide stability in the mortgage and credit markets for the long term. In April, the Financial Stability Forum presented to the G7 its report on the underlying causes of recent market turbulence, which proposed appropriate responses. G7 Finance Ministers committed to full, rapid implementation of the report's recommendations, which require action by national authorities, international bodies and participants in the market. In the UK, for our part, we have committed to rapid implementation, too.
	We announced in April that Sir James Crosby would lead a group to advise on options for improving the functioning of mortgage finance markets, working closely with market participants, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. Sir James is considering a range of market-led initiatives to improve the robustness of securitisation markets in the medium and longer term. He will initially report to the Chancellor during the summer, and he will then present his proposals at the time of the pre-Budget report, later on this year.
	My hon. Friend has reminded the House of cases in which borrowers with poor credit histories may not be able to access mainstream borrowing options. He has introduced me—and may well have introduced others in the House—to the term "funt", which I had not come across before. However, it perhaps rather vividly captures the predicament that people find themselves in. I think that he suggested that 500,000 people a year might find themselves in that position. That sounds a very large number to me, although I do not know.
	Where my hon. Friend and I will agree is that, in these circumstances, it is very important that borrowers do not turn to loan sharks. The Government have rolled out a project to close down illegal moneylenders in every region of the country. Those projects should reduce the vulnerability of financially excluded people—or "funts"—to borrowing at unaffordable interest rates and to the risk of intimidation or violence, which too many of them have faced. We are keen that there should be a decent alternative to those illegal sources of credit, so we have supported an increase in the capacity of affordable credit providers in the third sector.
	As part of our work to ensure greater financial inclusion we have committed £80 million, to date, to provide extra funding for third-sector lenders. That is being delivered through a growth fund, which was launched two years ago and is administered by the Department for Work and Pensions—I think that that is the justification for my responding to this debate rather than any of my colleagues to whom my hon. Friend referred. In Bristol, about 1,500 loans have been made to low-income borrowers from the growth fund, and Hampshire Credit Union has made thousands of loans to people in Portsmouth and it will be expanding to deliver thousands more in Southampton. In December, we announced a commitment by the major retail banks to supporting third-sector affordable credit providers, including action to develop new provision for affordable credit in 25 high-priority areas.
	My hon. Friend rightly underlined the importance of financial literacy, which the Financial Services Authority has a statutory obligation to promote and takes very seriously. I hope that those in the FSA who are responsible for these matters will want to examine the points that he has made. He rightly says that we could avoid many of these problems if people knew what they were getting into when they were considering taking out some of the products that are offered to them.
	On industry action, we have asked the mortgage industry to work on improving its voluntary arrangements for borrowers throughout this period, including those seeking to refinance fixed-rate deals, so that borrowers receive early advice and support. We hope that they will thus be able to avoid landing up in the situation that my hon. Friend has described. We welcome the statement by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that was published on 8 February, which sets out the steps the industry is taking to help avoid repossessions. Those include the following: joint working with debt advisers; proactive identification of at-risk borrowers; and considering repossession only as a last resort.
	Following recent meetings involving the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Housing Minister, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Finance and Leasing Association and myself, the industry is committed to reviewing its framework of support, to working with consumer groups, including strengthening its guidance and information for consumers, and to improving the arrears practices of lenders.
	The Government have put in place statutory regulation of mortgages and credit to help ensure responsible lending. In 2004, we extended the scope of FSA regulation to cover mortgages. We expect lenders to continue to fulfil all their obligations to borrowers under statutory regulation, so that they are afforded appropriate protections and repossession is considered only as a last resort.
	The Office of Fair Trading, which my hon. Friend mentioned, reports to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and regulates other consumer credit business. It is there that many of my hon. Friend's suggestions and ideas should be considered. The regulation of consumer credit is undergoing extensive changes following the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which received Royal Assent in March 2006 and will be implemented by October 2008. The new legislation enhances and updates consumer credit regulation by providing consumers with access to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism via the Financial Ombudsman Service, strengthening the consumer credit licensing regime and abolishing the previous £25,000 limit on regulated credit agreements.
	It is important that the regulatory framework remains effective for lenders and borrowers. The FSA and OFT are committed to working closely together to align their approaches on mortgage arrears. The Prime Minister announced in his legislative programme speech that the Government will look at whether further action is necessary to protect borrowers in the second-charge lending market.
	Some borrowers will experience financial difficulty, and that is why the Government are taking steps to help to address debt problems, including by providing good debt advice and improving financial capability in the longer term. We recently announced—on top of earlier announcements—a new £10 million package of measures to support home owners who may be facing difficulties with their mortgage. The announcement will also ensure additional debt advisers in citizens advice bureaux and other third-sector organisations, and expanded access to free legal representation at county courts throughout England for households at risk of repossession.
	I noticed that the briefing from Citizens Advice to which my hon. Friend referred specifically welcomes the funding for additional county court advice desks on mortgage possession hearing days as part of that package. I also join him in congratulating Citizens Advice on the vital work that it does in this area. That welcome is underpinned by the increasing financial commitment that we have made to supporting such work.
	As part of the package, we have also strengthened the National Homelessness Advice Service to provide a new comprehensive debt advice service that draws on the expertise of the two partner organisations, Shelter and Citizens Advice. The package also includes more specialist training for citizens advice bureaux staff and local authorities on debt advice to help families get their finances back on track.
	My hon. Friend referred to work in the Ministry of Justice. Following consultation in July 2004, several measures were included in part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. We are introducing an enforcement restriction order to provide those who run into sudden and unexpected short-term problems, and who have realistic chances of recovery in a short period, time to overcome problems without the threat of enforcement, so avoiding running into the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. As he mentioned, a consultation on the parameters for those orders ran from January to April this year, and he commented on what the Ministry of Justice said in response.